Believe in 9/11 Truth? Newt Says You’re Insane

[Carsonal]

CFR member and top ranking neocon dismisses those who don’t believe the Muslims in a cave version of events as insane.


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
April 30, 2008

It’s the only response a high-ranking neocon can provide, considering all the evidence and questions unanswered: anybody who believes 9/11 was an inside job, or for that matter questions the official fairy tale version, is insane.

And this is precisely what Newt Gingrich told Matt Lepacek of We Are Change — he is insane. No debate, no further conversation. He’s crazy and so are millions of other people, from the guy who has questions about the irrationality of fires toppling steel buildings to the full-blown 9/11 truth activist. Nuts. Bonkers. Not worth more than a few dismissive words.

But then Matt asked Sir Gingrich about his membership in the CFR, if he is indeed a 33 degree Mason, and if he ever visited Bohemian Grove. Nope, said Newt. He is not a Mason. And nope, he never visited Bohemian Grove. He didn’t answer the question about the CFR. Because he ranks high on the CFR totem pole.

Newt has a prestigious and very relevant position over at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is on the “Terrorism Task Force,” and it figures of course because he is a full-blown neocon. In addition to the CFR, Gingrich rubs elbows over at the American Enterprise Institute — when Bush mentions his “minds,” picked from AEI, he is talking about guys like Newt. The AEI is a primo neocon organization, counting as members other sinister figures, such as John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and David Frum. So upset was Frum the other day, he physically attacked Stewart Howe and his camera for asking what Newt would likely characterize as insane questions, questions Mr. Frum, who should be arrested for assault, did not want to answer because he is guilty as sin.

In fact, Newt Gingrich is a war criminal at large. He was Bush’s Defense Policy Board — along with other war criminals, such as Richard Perle (as chairman), James Woolsey, Ken Adelman, Eliot Cohen, and the pathetic Dan Quayle — and this coterie of hand-picked neocons set in motion the invasion of Iraq and the ultimate murder of more than a million Iraqis. Gingrich compounded his crimes by working with the now-defunct Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the recently revived Committee on the Present Danger. The former was a PNAC contrivance run by former Lockheed Martin vice president Bruce Jackson and stinking with perfidious neocons, including William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Joe Lieberman, and the above mentioned Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle and James Woolsey. All serious war criminals of Nuremberg caliber.

Well, at least Newt didn’t attack Matt, not like David Frum would have probably done in the same situation. Instead, he refused to make eye contact, dismissed his questioner as insane, and denied two out of three accusations pointing to his position in the New World Order, neocon division. Newt can play both sides of the fence, though.

No doubt, come January of 2009, he will play with Hillary’s team as well. But then Hillary says the sort of things Newt wants to hear. She wants to bomb Iran – the word she used, I believe, was “obliterate” — and that’s precisely the next objective of the neocons.

I bet they realize their objective before Hillary gets anywhere near the White House.

Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/?p=1850)

[One-Shot]

Yeah and newt like many other times would be right. Anyone who believes that junk loves to dismiss all reasoning and science (unless it comes from youtube by a "expert"). The whole thing is the definition of epic fail. I will never get it since half of the left thinks bush is a moron and the other half thinks he is is a evil genius. The government cant even secure the border much less keep a secret that would be next to impossible to keep under wraps. Poor Osama must be clueless why these people dont believe him when he takes credit.

[sonyfan6]

Gingrich and I don't see eye to eye on to many things but I think this is something we agree on. Although, perhaps delusional would be a more precise term than insane.

Also, why is the writer comparing William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Joe Lieberman, Richard Perle and James Woolsey to Nazis? Surely history and the English language is broad enough that one can find a more apt comparison for people that the author doesn't agree with.

[Reagan1981]

Gingrich and I don't see eye to eye on to many things but I think this is something we agree on. Although, perhaps delusional would be a more precise term than insane.

Also, why is the writer comparing William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Joe Lieberman, Richard Perle and James Woolsey to Nazis? Surely history and the English language is broad enough that one can find a more apt comparison for people that the author doesn't agree with.

Delusional or insane works good.

Hillary Clinton said she would Obliterate Iran if they attack Israel with nukes, what coward being US president wouldnt? Unless you're some 9/11 nutjob jews caused 9/11, now they blew up themselves with nukes, president lied, people died to attack Iran. But im sure you didnt know that cause you're from australia, receiving daily conspiracy theory emails.

Do you even know who Joe Lieberman is?? He is my US senator from Connecticut, he is a HUGE tax and spend liberal democrat with 1 tough bone in his body, and thats his support for the troops he sent to war.

As Ronald Reagan has said "If we have learned one thing....its you DO NOT send our troops to war unless you are prepared to let them win"

[DayWalker]

I hate to be a pessimist...
I am not trying to dismiss the horrific loss of life... and I am not saying that I believe it was an inside job...

But so what if it was an inside job???

What is ANYBODY going to do about it??? Nothing.

The US government can pretty much do whatever it wants... whether we know about it or not.

[sonyfan6]

Delusional or insane works good.

Heh, I only made the distinction because of the legal notion that the insane are not criminally liable.

[GhostFox61]

I'll tell everyone my process to determine if a conspiracy theory has validity.

President Bill Clinton, leader of the free world, head of the most powerful nation, yada yada yada....schtooped his intern.

So only 2 people were involved, one of them being one the most powerful person on the planet. The activity they tried to cover up was trivial at best in the grand scheme of things.

Yet they were completely unable to cover it up.

Therefore, whenever you examine a conspiracy theory, ask yourself the following questions.

1) Are the people involved more powerful then the POTUS?
2) Are there 2 or more people involved?
3) Is the event in question less trivial then double dipping a chip?

If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes", then you've proven the conspiracy as invalid.

[Carsonal]

How far do they have to stick their ****, up your asses before you realise they're ****ing you?

Come on people, wake up for christ sake.
Drop the "conspiracy nut" rock that gets thrown around and look to see that you've been duped like the many billions of people of previous generations.

[Pipes75]

I can't believe how blind everyone is - I made a mistake tryin to explore my spiritual side and did go throw what sum would call a mid-life crisis. The spiritual side is very real and all my emotions were extremely heightened before my breakdown, but I couldn't get into the spiritual side too much on my own in this rational dream that peaple call reality ;) however it is fact that we only use 1 side of our brain, the rational side and the other side is never used by well over 95% of the public, but I won't get into the spiritual stuff cuz I couldnt explore it too far before even I broke down - but I'm back stronger then ever and the facts are still outrageous. But the ignorance from the majority is crazy guess that why ignorance is bliss, and I don't have any ill feelings towards the blind as they just can't accept anything that isn't told to them from what they consider realiable. Many probably do think oswald was the only shooter in the JFK assassination! So how do you open closed minds if they don't want to open?

3 big things all should agree to - 1) Politicians are corrupt 2) Politicians start wars 3) The soldiers fight for pride of nationality or religion and do it with blind faith - all 3 of these are FACTS!

As for 9/11 - other then ignorance - Can anyone explain how the buildings came str8 down and didnt topple? What about the angluar cuts in the main beam supports that looked identical to how demolitions bring down the buildings? What of the timed delay on each building before they came down free fall style without toppling? What about building 7? What about the joke explaination for the disinegrating plane at the pentagon? Why did Bin Laddens family members get flown out imediately afteward? Why did the US go after Saddam instead of Bin Ladden if it was him? Why is Bin Ladden and Bush's family connected and both getting rich off US security?

The list could go on and on but I have never gotten any rational answers to any of these questions - so enlighten me - but before you try I will tell you right now that the planes couldnt have brought the buildings down in the manner they came down, if the planes woulda brought them down there woulda been alot of toppling not a free fall str8 down as they did. Also building 7 keeps getting left out or given joke explanations same as the pentagon. And thats just a small part - once you realize 9/11 IS a conspiracy and Iraq never had nothin to do with it anyway, then maybe you will start seeing all the shennanigans going on right in front of us - keep believing your controlled media and you will only get answers the conspirators want to give!

[sonyfan6]

IAs for 9/11 - other then ignorance - Can anyone explain how the buildings came str8 down and didnt topple? What about the angluar cuts in the main beam supports that looked identical to how demolitions bring down the buildings? What of the timed delay on each building before they came down free fall style without toppling? What about building 7? What about the joke explaination for the disinegrating plane at the pentagon? Why did Bin Laddens family members get flown out imediately afteward? Why did the US go after Saddam instead of Bin Ladden if it was him? Why is Bin Ladden and Bush's family connected and both getting rich off US security?

The list could go on and on but I have never gotten any rational answers to any of these questions - so enlighten me - but before you try I will tell you right now that the planes couldnt have brought the buildings down in the manner they came down, if the planes woulda brought them down there woulda been alot of toppling not a free fall str8 down as they did. Also building 7 keeps getting left out or given joke explanations same as the pentagon. And thats just a small part - once you realize 9/11 IS a conspiracy and Iraq never had nothin to do with it anyway, then maybe you will start seeing all the shennanigans going on right in front of us - keep believing your controlled media and you will only get answers the conspirators want to give!

They are called engineers (of which I am one) and they have excellent knowledge of how buildings fall down. The fact is that conspiracy nut jobs don't listen to experts, they listen to people who have no idea what they are talking about. The wilder the accusation the more they listen. Forget experts, even people working on their undergraduate degree in most engineering fields can debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorist arguments. The conspiracy theory arguments are written by people that have cracked open a text book, seen a graph and completely misinterpreted it. I'd flunk a Sophomore taking a phase diagram class that came to the conclusions that the conspiracy nuts come to. Frankly, I am not impressed at all by people that decide their conclusion and then go fishing for explanations for it.

[GhostFox61]

I can't believe how blind everyone is - I made a mistake tryin to explore my spiritual side and did go throw what sum would call a mid-life crisis. The spiritual side is very real and all my emotions were extremely heightened before my breakdown, but I couldn't get into the spiritual side too much on my own in this rational dream that peaple call reality ;) however it is fact that we only use 1 side of our brain, the rational side and the other side is never used by well over 95% of the public, but I won't get into the spiritual stuff cuz I couldnt explore it too far before even I broke down - but I'm back stronger then ever and the facts are still outrageous. But the ignorance from the majority is crazy guess that why ignorance is bliss, and I don't have any ill feelings towards the blind as they just can't accept anything that isn't told to them from what they consider realiable. Many probably do think oswald was the only shooter in the JFK assassination! So how do you open closed minds if they don't want to open?

3 big things all should agree to - 1) Politicians are corrupt 2) Politicians start wars 3) The soldiers fight for pride of nationality or religion and do it with blind faith - all 3 of these are FACTS!

As for 9/11 - other then ignorance - Can anyone explain how the buildings came str8 down and didnt topple? What about the angluar cuts in the main beam supports that looked identical to how demolitions bring down the buildings? What of the timed delay on each building before they came down free fall style without toppling? What about building 7? What about the joke explaination for the disinegrating plane at the pentagon? Why did Bin Laddens family members get flown out imediately afteward? Why did the US go after Saddam instead of Bin Ladden if it was him? Why is Bin Ladden and Bush's family connected and both getting rich off US security?

The list could go on and on but I have never gotten any rational answers to any of these questions - so enlighten me - but before you try I will tell you right now that the planes couldnt have brought the buildings down in the manner they came down, if the planes woulda brought them down there woulda been alot of toppling not a free fall str8 down as they did. Also building 7 keeps getting left out or given joke explanations same as the pentagon. And thats just a small part - once you realize 9/11 IS a conspiracy and Iraq never had nothin to do with it anyway, then maybe you will start seeing all the shennanigans going on right in front of us - keep believing your controlled media and you will only get answers the conspirators want to give!

Judging by this post, I'd say Newt has been proven correct in his assertion.

[DayWalker]

I can't believe how blind everyone is - I made a mistake tryin to explore my spiritual side and did go throw what sum would call a mid-life crisis. The spiritual side is very real and all my emotions were extremely heightened before my breakdown, but I couldn't get into the spiritual side too much on my own in this rational dream that peaple call reality ;) however it is fact that we only use 1 side of our brain, the rational side and the other side is never used by well over 95% of the public, but I won't get into the spiritual stuff cuz I couldnt explore it too far before even I broke down - but I'm back stronger then ever and the facts are still outrageous. But the ignorance from the majority is crazy guess that why ignorance is bliss, and I don't have any ill feelings towards the blind as they just can't accept anything that isn't told to them from what they consider realiable. Many probably do think oswald was the only shooter in the JFK assassination! So how do you open closed minds if they don't want to open?

3 big things all should agree to - 1) Politicians are corrupt 2) Politicians start wars 3) The soldiers fight for pride of nationality or religion and do it with blind faith - all 3 of these are FACTS!

As for 9/11 - other then ignorance - Can anyone explain how the buildings came str8 down and didnt topple? What about the angluar cuts in the main beam supports that looked identical to how demolitions bring down the buildings? What of the timed delay on each building before they came down free fall style without toppling? What about building 7? What about the joke explaination for the disinegrating plane at the pentagon? Why did Bin Laddens family members get flown out imediately afteward? Why did the US go after Saddam instead of Bin Ladden if it was him? Why is Bin Ladden and Bush's family connected and both getting rich off US security?

The list could go on and on but I have never gotten any rational answers to any of these questions - so enlighten me - but before you try I will tell you right now that the planes couldnt have brought the buildings down in the manner they came down, if the planes woulda brought them down there woulda been alot of toppling not a free fall str8 down as they did. Also building 7 keeps getting left out or given joke explanations same as the pentagon. And thats just a small part - once you realize 9/11 IS a conspiracy and Iraq never had nothin to do with it anyway, then maybe you will start seeing all the shennanigans going on right in front of us - keep believing your controlled media and you will only get answers the conspirators want to give!

... there are a lot of questions... and you are right to be suspicious...

I can't explain all of that..

but I do know that if you watch the entirety of the bulidings falling down... at the end you clearly see that it looks nothing like a controlled demoltion as pieces of the bulding are falling literally everywhere...

in fact... the majority of the video where the building is coming down looks nothing like an "implosion"

[sonyfan6]

Judging by this post, I'd say Newt has been proven correct in his assertion.

And the worst part is people like Pipes and Carsonal claim to be "independent thinkers" which frankly is an insult to real independent thinkers. It's like the episode of South Park where Stan tries recruiting the goth kids for his dance team and they refuse because its mainstream and they want to be non-conformist. Finally, the one goth kid decides to join because because he's so non-conformist he's not going to conform with the rest of the non-conformists and is going to do his own thing. What I'm saying here is that taking what some wackjob tells you on blind faith, just because it runs contrary to what everyone else is saying does not make you a guardian of a sacred truth that somehow only you can see. It makes you a delusional nutjob, equally blind as anyone else that takes wholeheartedly believes something without thinking for themselves. Following an oddball blindly does not make you an independent thinker. It makes you a sheep being herded by a lunatic, which in no way makes you more enlightened that someone who believes everything they hear from any source, be it government officials, political pundits, religious leaders, etc. without thinking for themselves. These people are all sheep, you just follow different herders.

True independent thinkers think things through for themselves. They listen to what everyone is saying and a decision based on their own expertise or based on whose expertise they believe they can trust. They do not automatically believe the mainstream nor do they automatically discount it. They think things through for themselves. Conspiracy theorists are not independent thinkers. They are not pursuing a greater truth that everyone else is blind to. They are delusional in their blind faith in a crazy idea. They are arrogant in believing that everyone else is blind. Finally, while I'm no psychologist I imagine that most have low self esteem and just want to feel special.

I said this in my first post on this thread. I don't agree with Newt on almost anything. However, he is absolutely correct here. Looking at the thesaurus on dictionary.com we see the synonyms for insane are: brainsick, crazy, daft, demented, disordered, distraught, dotty, lunatic, mad, maniac, maniacal, mentally ill, moonstruck, off, touched, unbalanced, unsound and last but not least my personal favorite: wrong. I think all of these are completely fair descriptions of those who allow themselves to be duped by this conspiracy theory.

[weskurtz81]

I can't believe how blind everyone is - I made a mistake tryin to explore my spiritual side and did go throw what sum would call a mid-life crisis. The spiritual side is very real and all my emotions were extremely heightened before my breakdown, but I couldn't get into the spiritual side too much on my own in this rational dream that peaple call reality ;) however it is fact that we only use 1 side of our brain, the rational side and the other side is never used by well over 95% of the public, but I won't get into the spiritual stuff cuz I couldnt explore it too far before even I broke down - but I'm back stronger then ever and the facts are still outrageous. But the ignorance from the majority is crazy guess that why ignorance is bliss, and I don't have any ill feelings towards the blind as they just can't accept anything that isn't told to them from what they consider realiable. Many probably do think oswald was the only shooter in the JFK assassination! So how do you open closed minds if they don't want to open?

3 big things all should agree to - 1) Politicians are corrupt 2) Politicians start wars 3) The soldiers fight for pride of nationality or religion and do it with blind faith - all 3 of these are FACTS!

As for 9/11 - other then ignorance - Can anyone explain how the buildings came str8 down and didnt topple? What about the angluar cuts in the main beam supports that looked identical to how demolitions bring down the buildings? What of the timed delay on each building before they came down free fall style without toppling? What about building 7? What about the joke explaination for the disinegrating plane at the pentagon? Why did Bin Laddens family members get flown out imediately afteward? Why did the US go after Saddam instead of Bin Ladden if it was him? Why is Bin Ladden and Bush's family connected and both getting rich off US security?

The list could go on and on but I have never gotten any rational answers to any of these questions - so enlighten me - but before you try I will tell you right now that the planes couldnt have brought the buildings down in the manner they came down, if the planes woulda brought them down there woulda been alot of toppling not a free fall str8 down as they did. Also building 7 keeps getting left out or given joke explanations same as the pentagon. And thats just a small part - once you realize 9/11 IS a conspiracy and Iraq never had nothin to do with it anyway, then maybe you will start seeing all the shennanigans going on right in front of us - keep believing your controlled media and you will only get answers the conspirators want to give!

Well, just because something look a certain way to you, doesn't mean it is. You can make these assumptions about the way the buildings fell, the one picture of the iron cut at an angle, and so on, but it doesn't mean that the 'theory' holds any water, that is why it's a theory....

I have watched all the same little videos like zeitgeist and all, and some of the stuff is VERY plausible, but, it doesn't PROVE anything. The fact is, you choose to believe those unprovable ideas, while others choose to believe the other side. So, just because you believe in that, doesn't mean that others who don't are incorrect. The theories cannot be proven, plus you can find any number of different ideas/people debunking them.

[sonyfan6]

I can't believe how blind everyone is - I made a mistake tryin to explore my spiritual side and did go throw what sum would call a mid-life crisis. The spiritual side is very real and all my emotions were extremely heightened before my breakdown, but I couldn't get into the spiritual side too much on my own in this rational dream that peaple call reality ;) however it is fact that we only use 1 side of our brain, the rational side and the other side is never used by well over 95% of the public, but I won't get into the spiritual stuff cuz I couldnt explore it too far before even I broke down - but I'm back stronger then ever and the facts are still outrageous. But the ignorance from the majority is crazy guess that why ignorance is bliss, and I don't have any ill feelings towards the blind as they just can't accept anything that isn't told to them from what they consider realiable. Many probably do think oswald was the only shooter in the JFK assassination! So how do you open closed minds if they don't want to open?

3 big things all should agree to - 1) Politicians are corrupt 2) Politicians start wars 3) The soldiers fight for pride of nationality or religion and do it with blind faith - all 3 of these are FACTS!

As for 9/11 - other then ignorance - Can anyone explain how the buildings came str8 down and didnt topple? What about the angluar cuts in the main beam supports that looked identical to how demolitions bring down the buildings? What of the timed delay on each building before they came down free fall style without toppling? What about building 7? What about the joke explaination for the disinegrating plane at the pentagon? Why did Bin Laddens family members get flown out imediately afteward? Why did the US go after Saddam instead of Bin Ladden if it was him? Why is Bin Ladden and Bush's family connected and both getting rich off US security?

The list could go on and on but I have never gotten any rational answers to any of these questions - so enlighten me - but before you try I will tell you right now that the planes couldnt have brought the buildings down in the manner they came down, if the planes woulda brought them down there woulda been alot of toppling not a free fall str8 down as they did. Also building 7 keeps getting left out or given joke explanations same as the pentagon. And thats just a small part - once you realize 9/11 IS a conspiracy and Iraq never had nothin to do with it anyway, then maybe you will start seeing all the shennanigans going on right in front of us - keep believing your controlled media and you will only get answers the conspirators want to give!

... there are a lot of questions... and you are right to be suspicious...

I can't explain all of that..

but I do know that if you watch the entirety of the bulidings falling down... at the end you clearly see that it looks nothing like a controlled demoltion as pieces of the bulding are falling literally everywhere...

in fact... the majority of the video where the building is coming down looks nothing like an "implosion"

The "explanations" for those things are all over the place for people that want to find them and are a lot more simple than a massive conspiracy. You are not required to be able to explain them, just to have the judgment to consult engineers instead of conspiracy nuts.

In order.
1) It's called pancaking and is a well known model of building collapse.
2) So called "angular cuts" are common in this situation and do not imply melting but stress and heat. There is nothing about these that suggest demolition. Some conspiracy theorists claim that thermite is needed to reach the melting point, however they would fail a mechanical properties course as the melting point is not required for this type of materials failure.
3) Buildings fell from a combination of structural damage and fire damage. Hence the buildings did not fall at the same time they were struck.
4) Building 7 suffered enormous structural damage from falling debris and fire damage, ultimately leading to its collapse.
5) The plane didn't disintegrate. Parts of the airplane and body parts were all over the place as reported by emergency workers.
6) That's a political question, not a scientific one, but I imagine that it was predicated on not wanting to chance them being attacked as revenge.
7) Um, we correctly went after the Taliban in Afganistan. Saddam was falsely implicated and we invaded Iraq two years later.
8) Because the Bush family is connected to big oil and the Bin Ladens are oil money. No question that there's some unethical stuff in the no bid security contracts but that's hardly proof of a 9/11 conspiracy, just a bad president playing favorites.

Oh, and regarding my credentials. I have an engineering degree in materials science and engineering. I've studied fractology. I cannot claim my PhD education towards these subjects as I've gone in more in the direction of soft materials so it would be unethical for me to claim greater proficiency than my undergraduate degree in the area of mechanical properties. That said I am more than willing to discuss material properties in depth with anyone that cares to talk science. I've tutored quite a number of people in that subject.

[Vulgotha]

Yup. They truly are insane.


Gingrich is correct.

[weskurtz81]

One other thought about the Pentagon attack.

If you really want to find stuff about it, the pictures are available. Just for instance, a picture of the wheel found in the wreckage, and a picture of a 757 wheel right next to it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/hub_detail.jpg

It seem clear to me that they are almost, if not completely, identical. There are many other examples of debris found in the crash which is similar to what would be found on a 757.

[coolguy]

I believe 9/11 was an inside job there is a movie on the net called lose change watch it.
did you see the video of the so called plane hitting the pentagon what a bunch of bull.
it was no air plane it was a missle. if you see the news tapes.. there was a bunch of constrution stuff
at the pentagon. right next to where the so called jet hit it.
if this was a real jet. the wings would have knocked all this stuff over but it was still standing.
not even 50 feet from the hole a jets winspan is over 100 feet long and this stuff would have been knocked down
and how about the light poles near the crash they would have been knocked down also but they where dont.
just some thing to thnk about

[One-Shot]

I believe 9/11 was an inside job there is a movie on the net called lose change watch it.
did you see the video of the so called plane hitting the pentagon what a bunch of bull.
it was no air plane it was a missle. if you see the news tapes.. there was a bunch of constrution stuff
at the pentagon. right next to where the so called jet hit it.
if this was a real jet. the wings would have knocked all this stuff over but it was still standing.
not even 50 feet from the hole a jets winspan is over 100 feet long and this stuff would have been knocked down
and how about the light poles near the crash they would have been knocked down also but they where dont.
just some thing to thnk about
You mean the reinforced building? Perhaps a cartoon like cutout of the plane in the building would satisfy you. That movie has been refuted and "revised" so many times.

[sonyfan6]

I believe 9/11 was an inside job there is a movie on the net called lose change watch it.
did you see the video of the so called plane hitting the pentagon what a bunch of bull.
it was no air plane it was a missle. if you see the news tapes.. there was a bunch of constrution stuff
at the pentagon. right next to where the so called jet hit it.
if this was a real jet. the wings would have knocked all this stuff over but it was still standing.
not even 50 feet from the hole a jets winspan is over 100 feet long and this stuff would have been knocked down
and how about the light poles near the crash they would have been knocked down also but they where dont.
just some thing to thnk about

To add to one shot:

What sort of engineering expertise are you basing this on? Clearly it is not your own engineering knowledge. Following that the question becomes why on earth would you decide to listen to Dylan Avery instead of engineers and scientists?

To see just how ridiculous Loose Change is take a look at Dylan Avery in a debate:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4070898042073434589&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4752533356478165351&hl=en

[weskurtz81]

Sonyfan,

Great post man.... I guess if you WANT to find the information, and see both sides of the coin.... you can. Obviously, many of these folks have no intention of coming to a valid conclusion, rather they just want to find something that furthers the ideal that they want to hold/already hold.

To imagine that these guys are watching some video pieced together by a bunch of kids..... who have no idea what the hell they are talking about.....

Too funny, LOL....

Good post SonyFan, I would rep you, but need to rep other people.

[Reagan1981]

When you talk to a 9/11 conspiracy nut you are taking part in a filibuster.


The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.But in this case its not to delay legislative action, its just to delay. And when you take part in it, it leads NO WHERE, its just one long filibuster. Do not get involved, thats all they want to do.

[sonyfan6]

See what offends me, as an engineer, is having these people with no idea of what they are talking about and spouting it off like fact. In the debate with the guy who created Loose Change, which I just posted, the guy is adamant that the WTC could have toppled over if hit by a plane but not come down. He has no engineering knowledge. He has no engineers telling him this. In fact he has engineers telling him the exact opposite. Despite this he is adamant that it violates some law of physics. What makes him adamant? His own ignorance. He does not have the engineering knowledge to understand how buildings collapse. He fully admits as much. However, he is completely satisfied by his own conjecture as to how it should happen and will not believe any expert that says otherwise.

[One-Shot]

That debate you posted was funny. For conspiracy theorists if not everything in a event goes the way they think it should (educated or no) then it is a conspiracy. Then they spin the hell out of it and brainwash you into thinking you are being manipulated by the "evil" government and you are a fool if you don't buy into their accusations.

[Pipes75]

The "explanations" for those things are all over the place for people that want to find them and are a lot more simple than a massive conspiracy. You are not required to be able to explain them, just to have the judgment to consult engineers instead of conspiracy nuts.

In order.
1) It's called pancaking and is a well known model of building collapse.
2) So called "angular cuts" are common in this situation and do not imply melting but stress and heat. There is nothing about these that suggest demolition. Some conspiracy theorists claim that thermite is needed to reach the melting point, however they would fail a mechanical properties course as the melting point is not required for this type of materials failure.
3) Buildings fell from a combination of structural damage and fire damage. Hence the buildings did not fall at the same time they were struck.
4) Building 7 suffered enormous structural damage from falling debris and fire damage, ultimately leading to its collapse.
5) The plane didn't disintegrate. Parts of the airplane and body parts were all over the place as reported by emergency workers.
6) That's a political question, not a scientific one, but I imagine that it was predicated on not wanting to chance them being attacked as revenge.
7) Um, we correctly went after the Taliban in Afganistan. Saddam was falsely implicated and we invaded Iraq two years later.
8) Because the Bush family is connected to big oil and the Bin Ladens are oil money. No question that there's some unethical stuff in the no bid security contracts but that's hardly proof of a 9/11 conspiracy, just a bad president playing favorites.

Oh, and regarding my credentials. I have an engineering degree in materials science and engineering. I've studied fractology. I cannot claim my PhD education towards these subjects as I've gone in more in the direction of soft materials so it would be unethical for me to claim greater proficiency than my undergraduate degree in the area of mechanical properties. That said I am more than willing to discuss material properties in depth with anyone that cares to talk science. I've tutored quite a number of people in that subject.

Finnally sumone that answers questions without just disregarding my comments. I trully appreciate :)

I don't know if I agree to all the answers, as I HAVE heard many experts say the manner which the buildings came down was very suspisious and I even have an engineer buddy that said he wished he could have had a hands on look but he couldnt give valid answers with just the clips. As for building 7, well I heard many witness reports say they heard explosions, also building 7 wasn't that close to the 2 buildings and many other structures that were much closer did not come down. The pentagon, I have never heard or seen any evidence of any plane debris. The connection to Bush and the Bin Laddens to oil should at least tell everyone the Iraq invision is completely in the wrong. I still have many questions about our entire exsitence as I believe we were meant to be so much more, but it is definetly nice to finally get answers rather then ignorance so thankyou.

My theories will bring more ignorance but I will throw them out anyway LOL

I believe it is possible that all our instutes (schools and churches) are forms of control. Work is another form of control. Money is the ultimate form of control. I believe we lost touch with our spiritualality a long time ago. In this world it is impossible to live without fear since fear keeps us aware of dangers in our environment however we cant explore our spiritualality unless we go without fear - thus it is next to impossible to explore this side. I believe all living things are connected but we are taught to live as individuals. Should I stop here cuz the more I explore these theories the crazier they sound. As for Zeitgeist, well I just found out the producers of Zeitgeist didnt do any of there own research and they just put other peoples theories together so I still think sum is very valid, however I don't know how much is valid. It does spark questions and thats all I have is lots of questions ;).

[Bansh88]

Why is an Australian trying to tell me how MY country works?
Other countries always claim that America butts in too much yet other nationaliteis have no problem critisizing and telling us our faults.

[sonyfan6]

Finnally sumone that answers questions without just disregarding my comments. I trully appreciate :)

You are welcome.

I don't know if I agree to all the answers, as I HAVE heard many experts say the manner which the buildings came down was very suspisious and I even have an engineer buddy that said he wished he could have had a hands on look but he couldnt give valid answers with just the clips. As for building 7, well I heard many witness reports say they heard explosions, also building 7 wasn't that close to the 2 buildings and many other structures that were much closer did not come down. The pentagon, I have never heard or seen any evidence of any plane debris. The connection to Bush and the Bin Laddens to oil should at least tell everyone the Iraq invision is completely in the wrong. I still have many questions about our entire exsitence as I believe we were meant to be so much more, but it is definetly nice to finally get answers rather then ignorance so thankyou.

I will be more than happy to discuss any of these things in greater detail if you wish. I will point out that you should be careful about saying that "[you've ]heard many experts say the manner which the buildings came down was very suspicious" if you have not talked to experts yourself. Many of these conspiracy theory sources make the claim that they have consulted experts but when asked who they cannot answer. Alternatively, conspiracy theorists make use of misrepresenting statements from experts who do not agree with the conspiracy theorists findings. Finally, conspiracy theorists also make use of fake experts, people who really have no credentials in the area. You will find all three of these deceptions in videos like Loose Change. In addition to making these deceptions with experts they also do the same with eye witnesses.

Regarding your engineering friend, if he has the patience he should look into the NIST report. What many conspiracy theorists do not comprehend is that the NIST report was not created to address their conspiracies. Rather, it is a critical engineering examination of building collapse for the purposes of designing better buildings in the future. Even without reading the entire report your friend should be easily able to verify that it is a sound scientific examination of the collapse of the WTC 1 & 2. NIST is still fully examining the collapse of building 7 and will release that report when it is completed.

Again, I will be happy to discuss any of these engineering concepts with you in greater detail.

My theories will bring more ignorance but I will throw them out anyway LOL

I believe it is possible that all our instutes (schools and churches) are forms of control. Work is another form of control. Money is the ultimate form of control. I believe we lost touch with our spiritualality a long time ago. In this world it is impossible to live without fear since fear keeps us aware of dangers in our environment however we cant explore our spiritualality unless we go without fear - thus it is next to impossible to explore this side. I believe all living things are connected but we are taught to live as individuals. Should I stop here cuz the more I explore these thearies the crazy they sound. As for Zeitgeist, well I just found out the producers of Zeitgeist didnt do any of there own research and they just put other peoples theories together so I still think sum is very valid, however I don't know how much is valid. It does spark questions and thats all I have is lots of questions ;).

I would characterize most of these statements as personal philosophy. The world is a complex place and no two people view it exactly the same. There are fundamental questions about the universe such as "why are we here?" to which there is no correct answer. Whatever works for you is just fine and its no one's business to tell you otherwise. There is a difference between one's personal philosophy and conspiracy theory. Personal philosophy deals with the unknowable and has no correct answer. Conspiracy theories tend to deal not only with the well known but to fly in the face of the empirical. As long as you stay in the realm of personal philosophy no one can tell you that you are wrong.

[hoverbike]

I can't believe this is coming up again. Every time this topic comes up, the same information is said and discussed over and over again. There has been books worth of information that have come out on 9/11 in the last 3 years. There have been tons of people coming out saying they don't believe the official story of 9/11 including the former president of Italy.

I wouldn't be surprised if the outdated, debunked PMA came up again.

[Pipes75]

I don't know what is reliable and what isn't anymore for sources over the net, but I don't believe things if they don't make sense to me. Here is a link that has many architects and engineers that find the official 9/11 story to be impossible

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

of all the stuff in the above link, I find this speech by LT. Col. Robert Bowan PhD to be the most interesting and he seems like a reliable source and he does say sum of the conspiracies are 'hogwash' but then says the official story isn't true neither

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

whether these are reliable sources of architects and engineers, well I don't know for sure, but the truth is what I seek and I don't believe we have the truth yet ;)

My engineer buddy hasn't had time to look at the NIST report but tells me without hands on there are many plausible scietific crap they can manipulate with and again says he wishes he coulda had a hands on look for himself. I don't know enough about engineering to be able to say if its valid or not for myself.

As farfetched as some conspiracies go, other conspiracy theories are simply that the government was aware and didn't prevent it, and with how long it took NORAD to respond these are also very intriuging to me. Whether the government was involved in 9/11 or not I do believe they coulda prevented either way. 1 big question we all should ask is Who gained from 9/11?

But I suggest checking out the first link, there are many links from that link of news reports and speeches from what I consider experts, but again I don't know who is reliable anymore, but I trust the Bowan guy as he is against most conspiracies but for a cover up ;)

[sonyfan6]

I don't know what is reliable and what isn't anymore for sources over the net, but I don't believe things if they don't make sense to me. Here is a link that has many architects and engineers that find the official 9/11 story to be impossible

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

of all the stuff in the above link, I find this speech by LT. Col. Robert Bowan PhD to be the most interesting and he seems like a reliable source and he does say sum of the conspiracies are 'hogwash' but then says the official story isn't true neither

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

whether these are reliable sources of architects and engineers, well I don't know for sure, but the truth is what I seek and I don't believe we have the truth yet ;)

My engineer buddy hasn't had time to look at the NIST report but tells me without hands on there are many plausible scietific crap they can manipulate with and again says he wishes he coulda had a hands on look for himself. I don't know enough about engineering to be able to say if its valid or not for myself.

As farfetched as some conspiracies go, other conspiracy theories are simply that the government was aware and didn't prevent it, and with how long it took NORAD to respond these are also very intriuging to me. Whether the government was involved in 9/11 or not I do believe they coulda prevented either way. 1 big question we all should ask is Who gained from 9/11?

But I suggest checking out the first link, there are many links from that link of news reports and speeches from what I consider experts, but again I don't know who is reliable anymore, but I trust the Bowan guy as he is against most conspiracies but for a cover up ;)

People need to be much more careful with what they read on the internet. I went through about the first 20 names or so on the list. Most of the people on the list are not from fields that have any knowledge of mechanical properties or building structures. (Architects have no knowledge of such things. They design building aesthetics and engineers figure out how to actually build it, especially in the case of skyscrapers. It's almost a field onto itself. So frankly, you can throw out all the architects as having no special knowledge on the subject.

After eliminating architects and focusing on people that actually have knowledge you can see a very interesting pattern develop. First off, you'll notice that these people did not sign onto the 9/11 truth movement. The ones with actual authority are quite misrepresented. DeMartini is the first one on the list and actually died in 9/11. Yet, the site is claiming that he questions the official version of 9/11 and features him prominently on the list. Next up is Scott Grainger who runs a home business selling fire proofing, but is propped up as a big shot. He has since donated $2300 to John McCain, not the actions of someone convinced that a Republican administration is responsible for a massive conspiracy. Next up is an irrigation engineer PhD. Just like the architects this field has no knowledge of building collapse and as an engineer it is unethical for him to use his degree outside of his field. Next up we have Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider, two German engineers that are being quoted as saying that WTC 7 appears to have been demolished. It should be noted that like DeMartini, neither has actually signed the petition and are presumably having their names used without permission. Furthermore, neither claims to have examined the NIST report. They, like many people being abused on this and other conspiracy sites foolishly gave an opinion on something they had not studied and are having their name spread around associated with these things.

Basically what it comes down to is that there is not a single article published in a peer reviewed engineering journal that supports demolition. It doesn't exist. There are 1.5 million working engineers in the US alone. Not a single one has examined the collapse data and disputed NISTs findings. Not one! There are, as one might expect in a group as large as 1.5 million people, some that have acted unethically and commented, using their title on matters that they did not themselves research. As stated previously that is unethical for an engineer and many of them regret their comments. People like Van Romero who casually said that it looked like explosives were used from video tapes. He later talked with structural engineers who did a detailed examination and no longer holds that opinion. Yet his name is plastered over the internet. Of course there are those that do not regret their comments. Unethical people willing to give their speculation the weight of their title. However, it is important to note that none of these people have studied the data and transformed their speculation into a scientific journal article that could be reviewed by peers. Without doing that these people are not acting in their roles as engineers or scientists and are just speculating the same as any other person regardless of their training or other achievements.

As far as Bowman goes since you mention him specially, I will point out that he clearly says the official conspiracy theories are hogwash. This guy clearly states that the WTC was knocked down by planes. He claims a political conspiracy orchestrated by **** Cheney to allow the attacks to occur for personal gain (and the gain of allies). I don't like **** Cheney, but I don't believe this. However, I'm not going to go into this as it does not impact the engineering side, which is what I am commenting on. I will point out how telling it is that movements like 9/11 truth are willing to host conflicting theories. This clearly shows the organization is politically motivated and has no interest in the truth. They will put their weight behind any 'theory' that vilifies the government even ones that contradict each other.

Now, that's all I'm going to go into on the issue of engineers and this conspiracy theory. If you would like to discuss engineering principle I will be more than happy to engage you as I previously offered. If you want to continue discussing a handful of unethical individuals who used their title when giving speculation, well I'm not going to waste my valuable time with that. The engineering behind what happened is incredibly sound and the conspiracy theorists claiming otherwise have no idea what they are talking about.

[Pipes75]

The reason I like Bowans statements is because he does call the conspiracies 'hogwash'. Just like in the JFK consparicies, the easiest way to cover up sumthing, is to create conspiracies so outrageous that the assumtion is believe the offical story or believe a farfetched conspiracy theory. I was believin sum of the conspiracy stuff, but the more I research it sounds more like a cover-up not a conspiracy. Same as JFK. Everyone knows Oswald was not the only shooter, but what is the truth?

Bowan does have an engineering degree and does call the conspiracies 'hogwash' but he also calls the offical stories BS too. I do come off strong in these forums but all I really want is answers that I can believe. But I do have to say that alot of the engineering stuff sounds believable now although I don't know enough to say if I believe it all or not. However there are still too many unaswered questions to believe the offical story.

I don't think it was the government that shot JFK neither, but I do think they were aware and didn't prevent then covered it up. I am starting to think 9/11 is the same idea. We are led to believe there are only 2 answers either believe there offical story or believe in an outrageous conspiracy. I believe the truth is in the middle. I still am not sure what I truely believe but I don't believe the official story.

[GhostFox61]

We are led to believe there are only 2 answers either believe there offical story or believe in an outrageous conspiracy. I believe the truth is in the middle.

It's called "Grey Fallacy" and unfortunately it is a major obstacle in rational discourse.

Let's say you took a crayon without looking at it, broke it in half, and gave a piece to your friend Jimmy and a piece to your friend Bob.

Jimmy looks it over and tells you the crayon is definitely white.

Bob looks it over and tells you it is definitely black.

So what do you do? You assume they must both be partially correct, and the crayon must be grey.

It is admirable to have that much faith in your friends, but the sad reality is that it is much more likely that one of your friends is simply an utter idiot.

[retsimco]

It's called "Grey Fallacy" and unfortunately it is a major obstacle in rational discourse.

Let's say you took a crayon without looking at it, broke it in half, and gave a piece to your friend Jimmy and a piece to your friend Bob.

Jimmy looks it over and tells you the crayon is definitely white.

Bob looks it over and tells you it is definitely black.

So what do you do? You assume they must both be partially correct, and the crayon must be grey.

It is admirable to have that much faith in your friends, but the sad reality is that it is much more likely that one of your friends is simply an utter idiot.

That's some real ****. Wise words.

[Carsonal]

We are led to believe there are only 2 answers either believe there offical story or believe in an outrageous conspiracy. I believe the truth is in the middle. I still am not sure what I truely believe but I don't believe the official story.

Well at both ends of the spectrum theres the really glossed up, official side and then down the other end is the really far out beyond all sanity stuff.
Whats in the middle is often what the intelligent or knowledgeable detractors of the official story are putting forward, but its the lunacy that is peddled in its place to make the official story seem like a more reasonable answer.

[Pipes75]

It's called "Grey Fallacy" and unfortunately it is a major obstacle in rational discourse.

Let's say you took a crayon without looking at it, broke it in half, and gave a piece to your friend Jimmy and a piece to your friend Bob.

Jimmy looks it over and tells you the crayon is definitely white.

Bob looks it over and tells you it is definitely black.

So what do you do? You assume they must both be partially correct, and the crayon must be grey.

It is admirable to have that much faith in your friends, but the sad reality is that it is much more likely that one of your friends is simply an utter idiot.

This is the most ******ed analogy I have ever heard. I don't mean to sound mean I ussually take ignorance without getting angry, but a crayon anology, come on. And people give ya credit for this, lmao.

So does this mean you guys all believe there was no cover up for JFK neither. Did Oswald have sum magical bullet then? Thats the offical story we are told to believe, oh yea but they had sum experts tryin to tell ya how the magic bullet was possible too, lol. Yeah that's believable. :suspect:

Do you really believe everything your government says is the truth? I sure as hell hope not, cuz its a well known fact - Politicians are Corrupt!

Since when is it delusional to ask questions? If so, then its a pretty scarey place, lets just believe everything told to us from people in power.

The answers givin for 9/11 are not sufficient for me, but this doesn't nessecarily mean I believe in a conspiracy, however why are they withholding info? And there should be no arguement that the government is definetly withholding info no matter what you believe.

Who benefitted from 9/11? It sure wasn't Al Quida! US government got alot of the stuff they wanted afterwards though! :suspect:

Why was Iraq attacked? They weren't involved in 9/11 and they had no WMD (although I have no doubt the government did try to plant sum WMD, they even had the 'anthrax traces' set up, but planting the WMD went bad, thank god. And although this is another theory, the anthrax traces were all over the news, they even knew where the weapons were, and then hey no weapons!) If they woulda got the weapons planted, then people would have reason to believe the attack on Iraq is justified. What is the reason now, cuz I can't think of a good one, and none are provided other then the US government thinks it can do whatever it wants! And If we keep letting them, they will keep doing it - Wake the F*(k up people!

The Bush family connection to the Bin Ladden family for oil should tell y'all sumthin about your president, and this info is from valid sources, the connection between these families is real! But keep believing this same government is gonna tell ya the whole truth! Sure thing and I'm the delusional one, lmao. I'd rather be delusional then another robot.

[GhostFox61]

This is the most ******ed analogy I have ever heard. I don't mean to sound mean I ussually take ignorance without getting angry, but a crayon anology, come on. And people give ya credit for this, lmao.


How ironic that you discuss ignorance while being completely unable to grasp the most base concepts of an analogy, never mind learning how to spell it correctly.

If you really want to do yourself a favor, get the help that you appear to need. The success rate for the treatment of mental disorders is extremely high in this day and age.

[Pipes75]

As far as Bowman goes since you mention him specially, I will point out that he clearly says the official conspiracy theories are hogwash. This guy clearly states that the WTC was knocked down by planes. He claims a political conspiracy orchestrated by **** Cheney to allow the attacks to occur for personal gain (and the gain of allies). I don't like **** Cheney, but I don't believe this. However, I'm not going to go into this as it does not impact the engineering side, which is what I am commenting on.

Actually Bowman says alot but I never here him clearly state that the WTC was knocked down by planes. He just doesn't go in that direction. He does have interceptor experience and gives insight into the lack of NORAD involvement. He has extensive expierence in many areas. He does blame **** Cheney alot though :). Here is a longer speech for those willing to listen. This was from 2006.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6347432752334298937&q=&hl=en

This guy is very credible the more I checked him out.

[Blacksite]

I can't believe people still believe in 9/11 conspiracies. Why do people keep bringing something that's been debunked multiple times back up again? I don't understand you and your conspiracies. It just makes no sense.

[Pipes75]

How ironic that you discuss ignorance while being completely unable to grasp the most base concepts of an analogy, never mind learning how to spell it correctly.

If you really want to do yourself a favor, get the help that you appear to need. The success rate for the treatment of mental disorders is extremely high in this day and age.

Funny how you only take a small part of my post and disregard the rest with nothin but more ignorance and try to make it out like I'm the one being ignorant, and use a spelling error to try and discredit me, lol. :rolleyes:

I didn't think I needed to go into detail about your crayon theory, but here I go. Your simple analogy implies everything is black and white when everyone knows there is always 2 sides to every story and rarely is the truth one of these sides. All issues always have 2 sides and the truth is ussually in the middle. That implies to everyday fueds with everyday people as well. If you believe the black and white analogy then your implying 1 person is always in the right and another is always in the wrong. This is rarely the case. The truth is that grey areas are ussually closer to the truth then any black and white.

Its not that I'm unable to grasp your simplicity, its that this is a complex matter and I don't believe in neither side - the official story for 9/11 has too many holes and the conspiracy theories are too far fetched (I wouldn't doubt if the government started most of these far fetched theories themself just to make them look so 'crazy' that the mass would buy into there official story!). Its quite obvious you haven't looked into any info yourself you just disregard it without researching and you buy into the official story so easily is ignorance to me, but I don't say it as an insult because the mass population think excactly as you do. Ignorance is bliss.

Funny you think I have a mental disorder, lol, but I actually have a very good grip on myself, I am just asking questions and I don't claim to have the answers - sumtimes my post come off stronger then I really believe but thats cuz I want to get people thinking. As for mental disorders, I can tell you right now the 3 biggest things ALL living things need is quite simple: Food - Shelter (includes Rest/Sleep) - Care (includes Self-Care). Well, I eat good, I sleep good and I have great self-care. Without those three simple things many 'ordinary' people can find themselves breaking down. I can however offer more theories that you will call delusional. I obviously have no problem speaking my mind, and honestly if 1000 people called me insane and 1 opened there eyes, I can live with that :).

We all know we all have 2 sides to our brain and we only use 1 side. I believe the other side we lost touch with is our spiritual side. I also know our emotions are extremely heightened in this spiritual side. We live in a world full of fear, I also know in this world we need fear since fear keeps us aware of dangers in our environment. We aren't suppose to explore this spiritual side with any fear - thus we cant explore it in todays society. I believe Mid-life crisis and nervous breakdowns are a result of the spiritual side and this world of fear, thus the heightened emotions once feeling any anxiety and we breakdown. Many 'normal' people have mid-life crisis and/or nervous breakdowns and this is my theory as to why. Call it crazy but prove it wrong.

For the few out there open to many possibilities, I suggest checking into sum of William Coopers speeches. His speeches look at a side that the mass population would never consider - he use to speak publically of such things as the illuminati, UFOs, JFK, the secret government and secret societies, and many other issues. He wrote a book 'Behold a Pale Horse'. He was threatened and even lost his leg but still kept speaking although he spent nearly all his money to make sure he had 'protection' after his leg incident just by simply keeping in a public circle. The assumtion was if he had people around him he would be safe as long as the majority didnt believe anything he said. This worked for a long time, until he predicted 9/11 before it happened. As far fetched as sum of William Coopers speaches may sound, the biggest thing about him that stands out - he did predict 9/11 and was shot outside his house by police shortly after his prediction. William was a motivational speaker and was not a violent man, and he was shot - the reason given for him being shot is still unclear to me but it sounds like another cover up but then again I even question John Lennons death ;). The fact Cooper predicted 9/11 and was shot shortly after just adds more questions for me! But even I have trouble believing too much of his stuff, although I am open to endless possibilities as I believe we were meant to be so much more.

[GhostFox61]

Funny how you only take a small part of my post and disregard the rest with nothin but more ignorance and try to make it out like I'm the one being ignorant.

It was rambling and incoherent. If you have a point to make, make it in a rational, logical argument. Otherwise of course I am going to ignore it.

We all know we all have 2 sides to our brain and we only use 1 side.

Why do you keep saying this? Yes the human brain has two hemispheres, but with the exception of a very few people who have undergone rare medical procedures (such as a hemispherectomy) we all use both sides of our brain.

If you only use one side of your brain, which side of your body is paralyzed? Because even with your obviously limited understanding of human physiology, you must know that each hemisphere of the brain is linked to the motor functions of the opposing side of the body.

Judging by your posting, I'd have to hazard a guess that the right side of your body is the one afflicted with hemiplegia. This would indicate that the left hemisphere of your brain is the one you are not using, which would fit as it controls analytical and logical thought, as well as grammar and spelling.

[se7enthsign]

First of all, there is no doubt that the US government, much like any large body, has a degree of corruption. There is also no doubt that at least one person in Washington immediately saw dollar signs when 9/11 occured. That being said, I don't think the US was involved in or had any advance knowledge of the actual attack.

I don't believe that the US government is evil enough to orchestrate an attack on US civillians. I also don't believe that they are so naive or so stupid that they screwed up everything since then. I do, however, believe that they are opportunistic. Osama handed Bush a "Do whatever the hell I want" card and he has taken full advantage of it ever since. 9/11 allowed the government to run wild and gave them the ammunition needed to scare the public into blindly following. Whether Iraq had WMD or not, Bush was hellbent on owning them. Saddam Hussein could have surrendered, put on a pink mini-skirt, and offered Bush a full body massage with a happy ending, and Iraq would have still been invaded.


Why did the US go after Saddam instead of Bin Ladden if it was him? Why is Bin Ladden and Bush's family connected and both getting rich off US security?

The US went after Saddam because the American people wanted Muslim blood and he was an easy target. The Bin Laden family has always had a strong relationship with the US. I've actually done business with them myself (not personally) while working for General Electric. The family themselves are not anti-US, but Osama is a rouge...a very rich rouge.

While Osama built and funded Al Qaida, I doubt he was directly involved in 9/11 itself. In my opinion, the government's biggest mistake was in giving Bin Laden too much credit for the attack. For all intents and purposes, Bin Laden himself was nothing more than a glorified cheerleader. The real men behind the attack have already been captured or killed, but with Bin Laden being so overhyped, nobody will care until his head and his head alone is provided.

[Pipes75]

It was rambling and incoherent. If you have a point to make, make it in a rational, logical argument. Otherwise of course I am going to ignore it.

I offer plenty of rational questions that I cannot answer. SonyFan made a valid point that I do not have engineering experiece and therefor even though I am suspicious of the manner which the buildings came down, I don't know enough to descredit the NIST report. However my focus has now turned to, even if the NIST report is true, why is so much still left unanswered?

Why did NORAD take so long to respond? Norad is capable of being anywhere over North America in under 10 minutes yet it took sumthing like 80 minutes to respond.

What is the explanation for building 7? Debris is not a valid answer for me as this building was not close enough and many other structures closer never came down (not to mention the witness reports of explossions).

Why are the surviallence tapes still not made public? The pentagon tape being the most crucial but there were several other surviallence tapes as well.

What is the explanation for all the molten found on the scene? The heat it takes to melt steal makes it hard for me to believe any fire could melt the steal.

These are just a few of the questions that the NIST report does not answer. Not to mention that the alleged 'terrorist' weren't from Afghanastan as they were almost all Arab.



Why do you keep saying this? Yes the human brain has two hemispheres, but with the exception of a very few people who have undergone rare medical procedures (such as a hemispherectomy) we all use both sides of our brain.

The 2 sides of the brain consist of a rational side which we all use, and another side that consistist of our emotions among other things. This emotional side is still not fully known and to be honest I'd have to say 'Aristotle' had the best understanding of this other side if you can follow his theories. This other side still has many mysteries but one thing is for certain, we use our rational side much more in this rational world. I like to think of the other side as our spiritual side or better yet our super-conscience, but others will call the other side our irrational side or our psycosis side. Dreams are a big part of this other side. The answers to the other side of our brain is still a mystery, but the fact we don't use the other side to its full potential is a fact. The stuff you have mentioned is about basic motor functions, but that is only a small piece of our brain.

If you only use one side of your brain, which side of your body is paralyzed? Because even with your obviously limited understanding of human physiology, you must know that each hemisphere of the brain is linked to the motor functions of the opposing side of the body.

As I stated above, motor functions are only a very small piece of the brain, and we perform motor functions without having to think about them. I am more into the thought process of both sides not the basic motor funtions.

Judging by your posting, I'd have to hazard a guess that the right side of your body is the one afflicted with hemiplegia. This would indicate that the left hemisphere of your brain is the one you are not using, which would fit as it controls analytical and logical thought, as well as grammar and spelling.

If you are gonna critisize my spelling yet again maybe you should proof read your own post (physiology - lol) Although I ain't worried about spelling on an online forum. You try to sound like you have knowledge but you dont say nothin. I have stated plenty of times I don't have the answers but we all need to ask questions. I find it hard to believe we were meant to be born, go to school, go to work, then die. We were meant to be so much more.

[GhostFox61]

If you are gonna critisize my spelling yet again maybe you should proof read your own post (physiology - lol)

In the future you may want to consult a dictionary before going onto the internet and making an *** of yourself.

[sonyfan6]

Guys, there's no reason to be going at each other like this.

Ghostfox made the point that the existence of two conflicting statements does not disprove both.

Pipes made the point that the existence of two conflicting statements does not prove either.

These two points do not logically oppose each other and can coexist as follows:

Sonyfan is making the point that the existence of two conflicting statements neither disproves nor proves either statement. By definition both conflicting statements cannot be true. One or none may be true. The disproving of one does not prove nor disprove the other. The proving of one, by the definition of conflicting statements, disproves the other. Otherwise, the veracity of each statement must be determined independently.

Now back to the thread at hand. I made the point that there is no scientific basis to claim that the WTC buildings collapsed due to explosives and not from fire and structural damaged caused by having airplanes kamikazed into them. To my knowledge there are no engineers that have disputed the NIST report's findings. As Ghostfox pointed out, there have been some engineers that have signed petitions asking for further investigation into the events of 9/11 and provided a link. I showed that not all of the engineers on the link had signed the petition, showing that the person creating that list was acting disingenuously. Further some that did sign the petition may well have been referring to non-scientific portions of 9/11, such as the conspiracy theory that reflects the charge that the government allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was no distinction made by the petition and it is incorrect to claim that those engineers are disputing that a plane crash could cause the WTC buildings to collapse. That said, there are quotes from engineers giving speculation as to the scientific aspects of 9/11, such as engineers being shown pictures of the buildings coming down and speculating without study that it shares characteristics with an explosion. However, to the best of my knowledge, there are no engineers that have examined the NIST report and disputed its findings. I know for a fact that at the time of this writing there is not a single academic paper within the engineering community that challenges the NIST report. The engineering community took the matter very seriously and thoroughly investigated why the WTC fell and agrees with the answers published by NIST. This includes engineers who speculated that the collapse shared characteristics with an explosion. When presented with the studies, these engineers have acknowledged that there was no explosion and that the characteristics they observed were characteristics of a collapsing skyscraper and not unique to the demolition of a building. Engineers are in agreement as to the cause of collapse at the WTC. It is non-engineers, people without the scientific background to understand building collapse, who doubt the scientific basis of 9/11. As always, I am more than willing to help clear up these scientific matters. Pipes, if you have questions please ask.

As for the rest, as I have stated before, I do not believe that the government willfully through action or inaction caused 9/11. I am a layman in this area and my knowledge is no more valid than anyone else's. However, I will say that the questions that Pipes addresses in this area are not proof of government involvement. They allege corruption at an unprecedented scale without proof. Rather they use lack of proof as a means of establishing a basis in fact. This is a logical fallacy and it will not persuade me nor any other person who thinks about the issue. Pipes, you are certainly welcome to bring up your questions in the context of this thread, however be prepared to explain the topicality of your questions. Simply saying that you have questions that have not been answered is not proof of a government cover up. Too often conspiracy theorists place too great an importance on themselves and their theories. The NIST investigation was not a response to conspiracy theories but an evaluation of a building failure for the purposes of building stronger and safer buildings. If it doesn't directly respond to issues in a conspiracy theory this is not proof that the conspiracy theory is true, just a simple matter that the majority of people do not care about conspiracy theories and most of what they do is not a response to one. Likewise I've heard conspiracy theorists have the gall to insinuate that the hasty removal of the steel was part of a cover up, whereas it was in reality part of a rescue effort to save people that were trapped under the rubble. Most people have goals that are very different than those of the conspiracy theorist and it is not proof of a conspiracy theory when the general population doesn't care enough about a conspiracy theorist's question to bother looking for an answer.

This brings us nicely back to my original point. The existence of two conflicting statements neither disproves nor proves either. One or both can be wrong. The statements must be independently examined for their veracity and the only condition is that both conflicting statements cannot be true.

The absence of proof is not, in and of itself, proof.

[Pipes75]

Guys, there's no reason to be going at each other like this.

Ghostfox made the point that the existence of two conflicting statements does not disprove both.

Pipes made the point that the existence of two conflicting statements does not prove either.

These two points do not logically oppose each other and can coexist as follows:

Sonyfan is making the point that the existence of two conflicting statements neither disproves nor proves either statement. By definition both conflicting statements cannot be true. One or none may be true. The disproving of one does not prove nor disprove the other. The proving of one, by the definition of conflicting statements, disproves the other. Otherwise, the veracity of each statement must be determined independently.

Now back to the thread at hand. I made the point that there is no scientific basis to claim that the WTC buildings collapsed due to explosives and not from fire and structural damaged caused by having airplanes kamikazed into them. To my knowledge there are no engineers that have disputed the NIST report's findings. As Ghostfox pointed out, there have been some engineers that have signed petitions asking for further investigation into the events of 9/11 and provided a link. I showed that not all of the engineers on the link had signed the petition, showing that the person creating that list was acting disingenuously. Further some that did sign the petition may well have been referring to non-scientific portions of 9/11, such as the conspiracy theory that reflects the charge that the government allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was no distinction made by the petition and it is incorrect to claim that those engineers are disputing that a plane crash could cause the WTC buildings to collapse. That said, there are quotes from engineers giving speculation as to the scientific aspects of 9/11, such as engineers being shown pictures of the buildings coming down and speculating without study that it shares characteristics with an explosion. However, to the best of my knowledge, there are no engineers that have examined the NIST report and disputed its findings. I know for a fact that at the time of this writing there is not a single academic paper within the engineering community that challenges the NIST report. The engineering community took the matter very seriously and thoroughly investigated why the WTC fell and agrees with the answers published by NIST. This includes engineers who speculated that the collapse shared characteristics with an explosion. When presented with the studies, these engineers have acknowledged that there was no explosion and that the characteristics they observed were characteristics of a collapsing skyscraper and not unique to the demolition of a building. Engineers are in agreement as to the cause of collapse at the WTC. It is non-engineers, people without the scientific background to understand building collapse, who doubt the scientific basis of 9/11. As always, I am more than willing to help clear up these scientific matters. Pipes, if you have questions please ask.

As for the rest, as I have stated before, I do not believe that the government willfully through action or inaction caused 9/11. I am a layman in this area and my knowledge is no more valid than anyone else's. However, I will say that the questions that Pipes addresses in this area are not proof of government involvement. They allege corruption at an unprecedented scale without proof. Rather they use lack of proof as a means of establishing a basis in fact. This is a logical fallacy and it will not persuade me nor any other person who thinks about the issue. Pipes, you are certainly welcome to bring up your questions in the context of this thread, however be prepared to explain the topicality of your questions. Simply saying that you have questions that have not been answered is not proof of a government cover up. Too often conspiracy theorists place too great an importance on themselves and their theories. The NIST investigation was not a response to conspiracy theories but an evaluation of a building failure for the purposes of building stronger and safer buildings. If it doesn't directly respond to issues in a conspiracy theory this is not proof that the conspiracy theory is true, just a simple matter that the majority of people do not care about conspiracy theories and most of what they do is not a response to one. Likewise I've heard conspiracy theorists have the gall to insinuate that the hasty removal of the steel was part of a cover up, whereas it was in reality part of a rescue effort to save people that were trapped under the rubble. Most people have goals that are very different than those of the conspiracy theorist and it is not proof of a conspiracy theory when the general population doesn't care enough about a conspiracy theorist's question to bother looking for an answer.

This brings us nicely back to my original point. The existence of two conflicting statements neither disproves nor proves either. One or both can be wrong. The statements must be independently examined for their veracity and the only condition is that both conflicting statements cannot be true.

The absence of proof is not, in and of itself, proof.

I actually luv your post sony, you at least look at both sides before making your mind up and thats all I ask is for people to look into things themself. I don't have engineer exprience and don't know what I can trust on the net. However unanswered questions don't mean I believe conspiracy - I just wonder why so much is left out. Steel needs alot of heat to melt and the molten on the scene was never explained. I am curious about building 7. I also still find it hard to believe a bunch of guys in caves coulda orchastrated the greatest attack on American soil so easily. But what also interests me is what has happened since.

For those that seem to think cover ups are so impossible explain JFK to me.

Almost everyone knows politicians lie, yet the majority still think these same politicans are gonna tell the whole truth about the biggest world issues.

[Carsonal]

Revealing before the end of 08.

[Bansh88]

Who benefitted from 9/11? It sure wasn't Al Quida! US government got alot of the stuff they wanted afterwards though! :suspect:



What exactly has the US government gained?
Al Quada did what they do. 9/11 terrorized us. We have had to change our way of life due to their terror.
Just like filthy little bugs, they have stung us. Hopefully it backfires and we clean house and rid the world of their vermin.
Until then, they have gained more than any conspiracy theory can say the U.S. government has gained.

[Vulgotha]

..Al Qaeda is just trying to cripple us. Look, they know that the Towers were:

A. Populated
B. A major player in our economy
C. (more importantly) A symbol for all that the west and Capitalism stands for (or what they think we do).

So they blew it up. Look these guys aren't Harvard graduated economists here, they thought it'd intimidate and cripple our country. The opposite happened, really. We got pissed off and our economy kept on rolling.

[sonyfan6]

I actually luv your post sony, you at least look at both sides before making your mind up and thats all I ask is for people to look into things themself. I don't have engineer exprience and don't know what I can trust on the net. However unanswered questions don't mean I believe conspiracy - I just wonder why so much is left out. Steel needs alot of heat to melt and the molten on the scene was never explained. I am curious about building 7. I also still find it hard to believe a bunch of guys in caves coulda orchastrated the greatest attack on American soil so easily. But what also interests me is what has happened since.

Steel does require lots of heat to melt. However, what people point to as melted steel, the so called angular cuts, is not melted steel. The technical term of what people observed is called necking and it occurs in materials that are undergoing plastic deformation, such as steel when it reaches its ultimate strength. Basically the steel starts acting like playdoh when you pull on both ends. The middle gets thinner and thinner until it finally breaks in half. That's necking. You don't need to melt the material to get that sort of deformation. Heat isn't necessary at all. It can occur at room temperature. Heat will reduce the materials strength allowing it to neck at lower tension. I can go into more detail if you are curious but that's the general gist. This is why the so called "angular cuts" are not evidence of melting and therefore do not show that thermite was used. It's a complete misconception. At the melting temperature steel becomes a puddle. At the ultimate strength it undergoes plastic deformation, necking and ultimately fracturing as seen in the WTC steel.

Oh, and I should revise one of my earlier answers, when I said that the mechanism of collapse was pancaking. I incorrectly stated that earlier in this thread but the NIST report does not support pancaking (although it's an okay but imprecise simplified answer). I've looked closer into NISTs findings and the technical cause of collapse was damage to the building from the impact severing support columns and removing fire proofing. The fire further weakened the support structure causing the floors to essentially begin caving in aka sagging. The weight was placed entirely onto the perimeter columns, which were not designed to support force of that magnitude in that direction. The perimeter columns began to bow inwards. This affected the force distribution throughout the entire tower leading to the failure of the south side of WTC1 and the east side of WTC2, which easily resulted in the collapse of the building. This is one of the reasons why people who haven't studied mechanical properties or statics have trouble. They picture the building as a solid object, whereas its actually an enormously complicated structure of beams, trusses and joints that are designed to support and distributed weight in a certain manner. They are designed to be able to withstand a certain amount of damage without failure but in the case of the WTC buildings it was just too much damage and too much force was applied in a direction to a critical part of the structure that was not built to handle the load. Hence collapse occurred. When the collapse occurred the floors began falling, forcing air out creating the poofs that have been mistaken for explosions as the building came down. That's the so called pancaking, which was not the cause of the collapse, but rather part of the collapse.

There's actually a great FAQ on this from NIST:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Regarding building 7, the current theory is a combination of structural damage from debris and fire. However, there is an extensive investigation going on at NIST that I believe is scheduled to report this summer. So I imagine we will have a much clearer picture when that report is released.

As far as the terrorist networks go, they are in fact very sophisticated, but I'll stick to the engineering and let someone else handle that one.

[Pipes75]

Steel does require lots of heat to melt. However, what people point to as melted steel, the so called angular cuts, is not melted steel. The technical term of what people observed is called necking and it occurs in materials that are undergoing plastic deformation, such as steel when it reaches its ultimate strength. Basically the steel starts acting like playdoh when you pull on both ends. The middle gets thinner and thinner until it finally breaks in half. That's necking. You don't need to melt the material to get that sort of deformation. Heat isn't necessary at all. It can occur at room temperature. Heat will reduce the materials strength allowing it to neck at lower tension. I can go into more detail if you are curious but that's the general gist. This is why the so called "angular cuts" are not evidence of melting and therefore do not show that thermite was used. It's a complete misconception. At the melting temperature steel becomes a puddle. At the ultimate strength it undergoes plastic deformation, necking and ultimately fracturing as seen in the WTC steel.

Oh, and I should revise one of my earlier answers, when I said that the mechanism of collapse was pancaking. I incorrectly stated that earlier in this thread but the NIST report does not support pancaking (although it's an okay but imprecise simplified answer). I've looked closer into NISTs findings and the technical cause of collapse was damage to the building from the impact severing support columns and removing fire proofing. The fire further weakened the support structure causing the floors to essentially begin caving in aka sagging. The weight was placed entirely onto the perimeter columns, which were not designed to support force of that magnitude in that direction. The perimeter columns began to bow inwards. This affected the force distribution throughout the entire tower leading to the failure of the south side of WTC1 and the east side of WTC2, which easily resulted in the collapse of the building. This is one of the reasons why people who haven't studied mechanical properties or statics have trouble. They picture the building as a solid object, whereas its actually an enormously complicated structure of beams, trusses and joints that are designed to support and distributed weight in a certain manner. They are designed to be able to withstand a certain amount of damage without failure but in the case of the WTC buildings it was just too much damage and too much force was applied in a direction to a critical part of the structure that was not built to handle the load. Hence collapse occurred. When the collapse occurred the floors began falling, forcing air out creating the poofs that have been mistaken for explosions as the building came down. That's the so called pancaking, which was not the cause of the collapse, but rather part of the collapse.

There's actually a great FAQ on this from NIST:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Regarding building 7, the current theory is a combination of structural damage from debris and fire. However, there is an extensive investigation going on at NIST that I believe is scheduled to report this summer. So I imagine we will have a much clearer picture when that report is released.

As far as the terrorist networks go, they are in fact very sophisticated, but I'll stick to the engineering and let someone else handle that one.

The NIST report pretty much claims there wasn't molten! They make claims the lava pouring out of the building seconds before it comes down without resistence wasn't molten. The don't mention the puddles of molten still at the scene for weeks or the beams that dripped of it. The more I read the NIST FAQ the more I question this report! I don't have to be an engineer to see the molten coming out of the building. I know you don't like youtube but the home video part of this that shows the lava like substance pouring out of the building seconds before it comes down is quite clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_E3p0Dp2UA

This is also from youtube but a must see - this is the chief engineer for the NIST report and he doesn't look comfortable while he lies about no molten!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY&feature=related



This is another link I found regarding molten, but I'm unsure of its credibility

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/molten.html

another interesting related link about the seismic disturbances again I don't know what I can trust on the net though :) I also see NIST briefly try to explain the seismic stuff, however I'm finding that many claim this type of seismic disturbances ussually involves explossives, again I ain't an expert.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

And I know this is another one from youtube, but it has alot of live footage so I thought I would include this too it shows many eye witness including the police department and the firefighters at the scene saying there were secondary explossions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

My biggest concerns are that the natural disasters world wide are getting worse and they will continue to do so. This is not a time we should be looking for enemies to hate and start wars with. We need to be united as mankind to face the upcoming natural events. 9/11 was an excuse for war that the US government was seeking. I am in the minority right now, but everyday people are starting to open there eyes.

[One-Shot]

My biggest concerns are that the natural disasters world wide are getting worse and they will continue to do so. This is not a time we should be looking for enemies to hate and start wars with. We need to be united as mankind to face the upcoming natural events. 9/11 was an excuse for war that the US government was seeking. I am in the minority right now, but everyday people are starting to open there eyes.
Yeah next time someone commits mass murder on American civilians just going to work we will ignore it since I am sure Al queda just wants to come together. :-|

[sonyfan6]

The NIST report pretty much claims there wasn't molten! They make claims the lava pouring out of the building seconds before it comes down without resistence wasn't molten. The don't mention the puddles of molten still at the scene for weeks or the beams that dripped of it. The more I read the NIST FAQ the more I question this report! I don't have to be an engineer to see the molten coming out of the building. I know you don't like youtube but the home video part of this that shows the lava like substance pouring out of the building seconds before it comes down is quite clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_E3p0Dp2UA

This is also from youtube but a must see - this is the chief engineer for the NIST report and he doesn't look comfortable while he lies about no molten!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY&feature=related



This is another link I found regarding molten, but I'm unsure of its credibility

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/molten.html

another interesting related link about the seismic disturbances again I don't know what I can trust on the net though :) I also see NIST briefly try to explain the seismic stuff, however I'm finding that many claim this type of seismic disturbances ussually involves explossives, again I ain't an expert.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

And I know this is another one from youtube, but it has alot of live footage so I thought I would include this too it shows many eye witness including the police department and the firefighters at the scene saying there were secondary explossions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related


Incorrect on all accounts.

NIST specifically says no molten steel. It also specifically says that there was molten aluminum, which has a much lower melting point. It's this sort of half truths that conspiracy people go crazy for.

Seismic activity claims are completely manufactured. There is no seismic spikes before the collapse. Readings are 10 seconds after collapse and continue for 15 seconds.

You know that a secondary explosion means one that is caused by fire? A demolition would be a primary explosion.

I would like to redirect you to the FAQ I linked from NIST as it actually takes the time to address conspiracy theories. The first two things you bring up are addressed in that FAQ.

[OKlondon]

Here we go again and I just cant help myself to join in, must admit do miss the politics thread. Well really whats more insane the American government doing it or Muslims in a cave, both are pretty insane.

I m kind of on the fence on this one, I know theres something fishy going on but I dont have the knowledge of the event, none of us do so I just believe the experts. Believe me you ll go crazy trying to work out the truth just let it be.

Theres just one thing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

And Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11?


USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Why is he not wanted for 9/11

[Pipes75]

Incorrect on all accounts.

NIST specifically says no molten steel. It also specifically says that there was molten aluminum, which has a much lower melting point. It's this sort of half truths that conspiracy people go crazy for.

Seismic activity claims are completely manufactured. There is no seismic spikes before the collapse. Readings are 10 seconds after collapse and continue for 15 seconds.

You know that a secondary explosion means one that is caused by fire? A demolition would be a primary explosion.

I would like to redirect you to the FAQ I linked from NIST as it actually takes the time to address conspiracy theories. The first two things you bring up are addressed in that FAQ.

NIST does specifically say no molten steel, but that is comical people believe it. Aluminum would not have pools of molten still at the scene weeks after. Also many survivers said it was like a foundry inside. Plus the lava like substance was pouring out of the one building just seconds before the collapse - I don't believe there wasn't molten steel - and the link on my previous post shows this molten pouring out quite clear. I don't have to be an engineer to see that. Its tough to find satelite images still kicking, but if you can find the satelite images, it shows there was thermal activity. The NIST report claims there was no thermal activity. The lead engineer speaking (also in my previous post) avoids questions about molten, about thermal activity and about building 7. He claims there wasn't molten or thermal activity and says the report for building 7 isn't available yet - its been 7 years and they still can't explain building 7!
As an engineer just look at the live footage of the molten pouring out - my engineer buddy recently took a look at this footage and he is very suspicious and he is an engineer.

The secondary explossions were also not addressed the police department at the scene were even quoted saying 'theres a bomb inside' they also found suspiscious devices. Some of these explossions came from the basement! The live footage of witnesses all mention these explossions. As for a demolition having 1 primary explossion, I ain't an expert, but I'm pretty sure a skyscrapper needs more then 1 explossion to bring it down propperly.

I read the FAQ and it doesn't explain the molten steel or the thermal activity it just denies them both. It also doesn't explain why so many witnesses reported secondary explossions no where near the floors the planes had hit.

[sonyfan6]

NIST does specifically say no molten steel, but that is comical people believe it. Aluminum would not have pools of molten still at the scene weeks after. Also many survivers said it was like a foundry inside. Plus the lava like substance was pouring out of the one building just seconds before the collapse - I don't believe there wasn't molten steel - and the link on my previous post shows this molten pouring out quite clear. I don't have to be an engineer to see that. Its tough to find satelite images still kicking, but if you can find the satelite images, it shows there was thermal activity. The NIST report claims there was no thermal activity. The lead engineer speaking (also in my previous post) avoids questions about molten, about thermal activity and about building 7. He claims there wasn't molten or thermal activity and says the report for building 7 isn't available yet - its been 7 years and they still can't explain building 7!
As an engineer just look at the live footage of the molten pouring out - my engineer buddy recently took a look at this footage and he is very suspicious and he is an engineer.

The secondary explossions were also not addressed the police department at the scene were even quoted saying 'theres a bomb inside' they also found suspiscious devices. Some of these explossions came from the basement! The live footage of witnesses all mention these explossions. As for a demolition having 1 primary explossion, I ain't an expert, but I'm pretty sure a skyscrapper needs more then 1 explossion to bring it down propperly.

I read the FAQ and it doesn't explain the molten steel or the thermal activity it just denies them both. It also doesn't explain why so many witnesses reported secondary explossions no where near the floors the planes had hit.

I'm sorry Pipes, but you've moved outside the realm of engineering and have entered the realm of make-believe.

Your assertations are grounded on hearsay, not on facts.

Let's look at this individually. Point by point.

On what grounds do "people" say there is molten steel opposed to molten aluminum? It is not enough for you to say that you believe there was molten steel. You have to point to something as to why you believe there was molten steel. Just because is not a good enough answer to support charges of this nature.

You say that there would not be pools of aluminum weeks after. What are you trying to say here? That the aluminum would vanish?

Doesn't comparing something to a foundry just mean they are saying it was really hot? Further, how does this indicate molten steel?

Why does thermal activity indicate anything other than intense heat from a fire? You say there was thermal activity. Thermal means heat. Of course there was thermal activity in a burning building. On what grounds are you tying this to the conspiracy theory? Furthermore, it should be noted that the only thermal data I am aware of (this does not mean there isn't other data) is the EarthData, which was not collected during the event. It was only collected after the disaster had already occurred to assist rescue workers.

The NIST report specifically mentions molten material. It is fully addressed in section H.7.2 and is even shown in a picture in figure H-21, addresses eye witness accounts, video and media reporting of it. Hardly the acts of someone ignoring it and trying to cover up as insinuated.

As for building 7, the report will be out this summer (I believe that is still the time frame). The report on the WTC 1 & 2 took a few years as well and this is the same team. They finished WTC 1 & 2 and moved onto WTC 7. Their preliminary findings are already available and have been for some time, but the conclusive report is still being prepped for release. Science takes time and is far more difficult than making wild accusations without proof.

For this next part The secondary explossions were also not addressed the police department at the scene were even quoted saying 'theres a bomb inside' they also found suspiscious devices. Some of these explossions came from the basement! The live footage of witnesses all mention these explossions. I'm going to respond by simply saying, source? Anyone can make hearsay. NIST interviewed over 1200 people at the scene as part of its investigation.

As for demolitions having one primary explosion, where are you getting this? A demolition has explosive devices wired throughout the building at precise locations. Secondary explosions, as discussed in my last response, have nothing to do with controlled demolitions. They are explosions caused by fire igniting materials.

The NIST FAQ absolutely explains the molten material. As for thermal imaging it doesn't talk about it. You didn't mention it in your previous post. You mentioned three things: molten materials, seismic data and secondary explosions. The first two are directly addressed in the FAQ I linked and those and many more things are addressed in much greater depth in the report. Regarding thermal imaging, I already responded to that above. What thermal imaging of 9/11? The only thermal imaging I have ever seen is EarthData used by rescue workers. If you can provide me with thermal imaging of 9/11 I will be happy to look further. I haven't read all 10,000 pages of the NIST report so it may even be in there, but I have never seen it. If you want to talk about thermal imaging please let us know what thermal imaging.

Again, regarding secondary explosions, who reported, which floors? There was fire in many parts of the building. Please be more specific if you want real answers.

[weskurtz81]

Pipes,

I would love to join in, but you are really going to need to post some hard evidence of this, preferably not just some guy twisting things in a youtube video.

The molten material thing, as Sony said, is pretty simple to explain. There were more than one type of metal found in the WTC buildings. Hell, they had desks and all sorts of metal based products, that were not made of steel alone.... just think about all the metal based products in an office building... Just because some type of molten metal flowed out of the building does not mean it is steel. Not to mention, that molten metal has been reported to be aluminum, found on the ground in long tear drop formations, because it cooled and solidified on its way down to the ground... aluminum.

And the explosions, could have been any number of things... elevators could have fallen, something else could have fallen down elevator shafts, fire could spread down the shaft (jet fuel).... who knows, I don't, but I can't say that it was a bomb either. Also, if you have ever seen a demolished building, you CLEARLY see the explosions, not the case in the WTC crash... sure some windows blew out, but what you do expect, the building is collapsing, a sudden increase in air pressure inside the building would easily blow out windows, or the outter walls flexing under the strain... easy to explain.

Edit: BTW, here is a picture of molten aluminum, and a picture of the molten material pouring out of the building....

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326AR_b.jpg
^^^ Aluminum

http://www.metaullics.com/graphics/sams1.jpg
^^^ Aluminum

http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg
^^^ Molten mystery material coming out of the WTC.

[OKlondon]

Wow thats a lot never seen that picture before, how much aluminium did they have in the building, aluminium suspended ceiling? Aluminium in the raised floor?

Even if its a composite of other metals aswell, that is a lot.

[sonyfan6]

Wow thats a lot never seen that picture before, how much aluminium did they have in the building, aluminium suspended ceiling? Aluminium in the raised floor?

Even if its a composite of other metals aswell, that is a lot.

There are a couple sources of aluminum. First is the building had aluminum cladding. The second is the plane itself. Pretty much the entire plane is aluminum alloy. NIST basically figured out that is melted down (fire was plenty hot to melt the aluminum) and pooled on one of the sagging floors (forget which one) and then as the building was distorting it came flowing out all at once, like poking a hole in the bottom of a cup of water. The NIST report is quite good and is written up largely in a manner that non-engineers can read it and get some understanding of events. I'd definitely recommend checking it out for things like this.

[weskurtz81]

As Sony said, the plane. I was thinking about it after I posted, and the plane like he said, is nearly all aluminum, and not much of it ever came out the other side.... so, that is a lot of aluminum from the plane alone....

[OKlondon]

Lol completely forgot about the plane, yeah pretty much explained it, didnt know WTCs had aluminum cladding, thanks for the info.

Can someone address my first post, would like to hear some opinons on why the FBI did not choose to put 9/11 in Bin Laden's wanted description.

[sonyfan6]

Lol completely forgot about the plane, yeah pretty much explained it, didnt know WTCs had aluminum cladding, thanks for the info.

Can someone address my first post, would like to hear some opinons on why the FBI did not choose to put 9/11 in Bin Laden's wanted description.

I don't really know. Maybe they felt it was obvious? I'm reminded of a conversation I heard on the radio a few years ago about a blind man who got drunk with a friend one night and told his friend that what he really wished he could do was drive a car. The two thought it would be a good idea, got into a car with the blind man in the driver's seat and his friend began calling out instruction like break, accelerate, turn right, etc. Well as one might imagine this didn't work so well and they ended up in a crash. There was an enormous list of charges including driving without a license, driving while intoxicated, reckless endangerment, etc. The radio show host rather indignantly exclaimed "why the **** isn't he being charged with driving blind?" At any rate, this made me think of that. Sorry if it's not completely related. My guess is that the FBI feels that everyone knows about bin Laden's involvement with 9/11 and wanted to make sure that people were aware that he was responsible for a whole lot of other terrorist attacks as well. I don't think this is a good reason to not include it, but they probably felt it was well known and to focus the few lines on the rest of bin Laden's terrorist activities.

[Pipes75]

Aluminum cools rather quickly - the pools of molten were on the scene for a long period of time. Some of this is repeated from my previous link but it shows what I consider evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s&feature=related

and another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE&feature=related

There are plenty examples - the temperatures of the rumble weeks after were much higher on the surface then it takes to melt aluminum, so you can imagine how high the temperatures were inside the building!

[weskurtz81]

Aluminum cools rather quickly - the pools of molten were on the scene for a long period of time. Some of this is repeated from my previous link but it shows what I consider evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s&feature=related

and another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE&feature=related

There are plenty examples - the temperatures of the rumble weeks after were much higher on the surface then it takes to melt aluminum, so you can imagine how high the temperatures were inside the building!

What does the cooling speed of aluminum have to do with molten material being buried in hot rubble? If the rubble was hot enough to keep the stuff liquid, then it would matter how fast it cools. Not to mention, if the rubble wasn't hot enough to maintain molten steel, then the steel would have cooled off an solidified... same as the aluminum...

[sonyfan6]

Aluminum cools rather quickly - the pools of molten were on the scene for a long period of time. Some of this is repeated from my previous link but it shows what I consider evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s&feature=related

and another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE&feature=related

There are plenty examples - the temperatures of the rumble weeks after were much higher on the surface then it takes to melt aluminum, so you can imagine how high the temperatures were inside the building!

Thank you for further explaining your argument. This allows me to correctly identify what argument you are making and explain the problems with it.

First to summarize what point Pipes is making.

A) Melted metal was visible at the scene.
B) There are two possible sources of metal: aluminum and steel.
C) Thermal data used by rescue workers shows pockets of heat in the rubble days after the collapse.
D) One can attribute these pockets of heat to pools of molten metal
E) Aluminum cools more rapidly than steel.
F) The melted metal was therefore steel.
G) Only thermite could melt steel.
H) The presence of thermite proves that the WTC was collapsed due to a controlled demolition.

So now that we have the actual argument laid out in a manner where people can view it we find that most of the argument is based in fact.

A) Melted metal was visible at the scene
B) The majority of metal present was either aluminum or steel.
C) Thermal data was gathered by rescue workers and did show pockets of hea