The 9/11 Faith Movement

This is the hollowest bit of propaganda, with so many holes in it’s feeble argument that for once everybody is going to stay on topic as we shred this piece of printed presstitution.  Your mixing up and twisting of other people’s claims and the completely uncontextual presentation of same makes you look like a SHILL and nothing else.  You either know nothing and are copying some other thinly disguised hit pieces or you know what you are doing in which case one wonders why instead of just using shills to repeat the lies the US admin doesn’t fabricate some more evidence and be done with it.  Maybe they have been caught out with the other fabrications too often so they dare not?  I’d say mainly they count on enough complete idiots continuing to buy the lies and not finding access to the facts.  Thanks to rags like ITT, the chances that it’s readers at least will find the facts is being seriously hampered thanks to their sellout.

The official story is a conspiracy theory actually, since it lacks proof and it is therefore subject to being judged on all the same evidence as any other theory.  The evidence which could most easily prove the truth was destroyed in record time, and the rest is being kept secret.

The simple fact is that 42% of Americans have woken up to the truth and that number is growing daily.  More and more people from Scientists, Engineers, ex administration people and leaders of countries are realising the fact that 911 was self inflicted, and that the guilty parties are no further away than the White House.

You Terry Allen are so completely wrong about nearly everything you wrote it is almost surreal.  Actually Americans don’t love a conspiracy theory, the cognitive dissonance involved in having to face up to the truth in this case is what keeps the truth from being even more widely accepted, but the flow of converts is always in one direction and that isn’t going to change.

Rather than a series of circumstantial matters the evidence for demolition charges runs the full gamut from theory, history, witnesses, video footage which is clearly showing the squibs effect to the scientific findings which not only point to the theoretical likelihood of explosives demolition, recent testing of some WTC steel samples showed traces of the chemicals which proove it was Thermate used to destroy the buildings.

Meanwhile the government conspiracy theory has nothing going for it.  You are completely wrong when you say that the official explanation is supported by engineers.  Only a few and they are all connected to the offical liars, have agreed while most engineers say only that the official explanation is lacking in many details.  There are instead engineers and scientists who have clearly detailed why it is not possible for the fires and planes to have brought down the buildings, and despite the massive ad-hominem attacks such people are made to suffer whenever they speak out, exactly why more don’t, NOBODY has ever actually tackled the hard science behind these claims.

Not only is science an impassable barrier for the official conspiracy theory, so too is history since no buiding ever collapsed into its own footprint without carefully set-up demolition charges, I happen to be an explosives expert by the way.  I can assure you there isn’t a demo expert in the world who buys the official theory, it isn’t going to happen either.  The buildings fell at the rate of gravity almost, and this isn’t possible unless all structural resistance was eliminated, in one go.  No pancaking theory can explain this, it is just a CON job and I can only feel contempt for anyone stupid or cowardly enough to convince themselves otherwise.

It should be mentioned that there is an unclaimed one million dollar reward on offer to anyone who can prove that the official story is even possible.  Funny that if it is such a solid bit of theory that nobody can actually model such a collapse I’d say. 

Not only does the official theory, for it is not a fact, not proven, merely a theory, not explain how a building which had been designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts fell after one jet only, it doesn’t in any way cover how WTC-7 fell in exactly the same way, into its own footprint due to nothing but a small and intermittent fire.  Watch the video, no raging fires in any of the buildings as the offical theory tries to tell us.  What do you think all that black smoke means?  COLD FIRES!

We are expected to suspend disbelief and accept that for the first time in history and against all odds, not one, not two, but three entire Skyscrapers fell into their own footprints on the same day. 

Now that is what I call FAITH!

The official conspiracy theory lacks any real evidence, what there is has been kept secret and even the fake 911 commission didn’t get access.  Now if the proof was in the massive amount of witheld evidence, perhaps it is about time it was shown to somebody since the world is becoming increasingly suspicious?

One funny thing has only recently emerged, is that the FBI admits it has absolutely NO EVIDENCE of Bin Laden’s involvement.  None at all.  That is a fact.  No evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement.  The only evidience of hijackers on the day is from cell phone calls which have since shown could not have been made from those planes at the altitudes.  The chances of any of them were very slim, and at least the ones from flight 93, were impossible!

I by the way I am not an American, and outside of the USA the numbers of people who KNOW that 911 was a false flag attack is even higher.  Like there our numbers are increasing too, a sure sign of impending realisation of truth rather than delusions.  If the alternative theory of what happened on 911 was not based upon a solid foundation, then logic predicates the theory would belong to a peripheral group and their numbers would not be growing, more likely dwindling at ths time.

Our numbers are growing and the type of everyday people as well as many highly respected people who are joining us is the smoking gun which shows that the truth is not with you, but with us.

Last but not least. 

For any who are approaching this with an open mind, do take note of the sort of pathetic, and emotional and faith based crap which will be posted by any who dare to try and support the offical conspiracy theory.  Take note of how they will just keep on running on the spot, dodging fact after fact by referring to co-incidences, inventing ad-hock theories or stretching existing ones to the limit to try and explain fact after fact.  Notice how they cannot actually explain all facts, and these they will completely ignore if they don’t simply call them lies, never mind they are verifiable facts and demand an explanation.  They have nothing but cobbled together theories that more and more intelligent and educated people are realising are absolute rubbish.  As the case for Bush Junta involvment and controlled demolitions is systematically built in an unbroken chain of evidence, much of it witnesses as well as scientific and video, you will see over and over that everything which is known is entirely consistent with both these ideas and many individual facts of themselvs are capable of demolishing the official lies on their own.  Frankly one particular witness does this all by himself.  One scientific theory, the law of gravity, pretty well demolishes the official lies.  But I am asking you to do as the Mr Allen suggests, look at the whole train of evidence, comapre it all with the two competing theories and see where you are left.

If after doing this you still somehow find yourself somehow maintaining your belief in the oficial conspiracy theory, of what happened on 911, rest assured that a few other feeble minded individuals will be there to greet you and assure you all you need is faith..

No complete unbroken line of evidence nor science can be made for the official theory. 
This is a challenge I Rabbit make to any. Whereas we have exactly this, an unbroken line of scientific and other evidence which imply that the Bushling Junta (or its controllers) were in on it and they used explosives.

Prove me wrong!

................................................................................................................................................................

This is the rabbit from the future.  It is now several weeks later and about 500 posts have passed.  Thanks to the desperate efforts of a well known Bush administration shill the updated version of Professor Steven Jones’ report has just been brought to my attention.  The shill concerned who you will meet if you continue down this thread, made a serious error in bringing up this link for I may not otherwise have thought to do so.  It is so utterly convincing, including numerous peer reviewed studies and basically all you need to know to be able to find the truth.

If it is truth you seek, you need go no further than this one link.  By all means research all you like, and make up your own mind.  But don’t miss this, it is the last word and nobody is going to be able to deny the truth having studied it.

In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 5:19 AM

One minor point Terry Allen, Faith is a belief held without the benefit of evidence or proof.  Those of us who have gone to the trouble to look at all that is known about 911, are able to come to a conclusion which is based on actual evidence.

Those who accept the offical fairy tale, which is absurd even upon its face do so based upon one reason and that is faith that the government bodies who put together the reports are telling the truth.  The evidence of what happened on 911 actually points well and truly away from the official theory and that is a measurable fact as this thread is going to demonstrate over the next few days I predict.  This is why we have been describing those who do blindly accept the ridiculous assertions by the administration, as the Faith based brigade and I suggest that your attempt to hijack the term is not only ironic and innacurate, but it is actually more than a little sleazy.

In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 5:39 AM

Sirs,

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/challenge-to-in-these-times-magazine.html

“...I want to challenge the Editors, Publishers, Publishing Consortium, and Board of Directors of “In These Times” to ask their readers whether or not they should publish my review of “The Hidden History of 9-11-2001” within the covers of “In These Times” magazine as a rebuttal to Allen’s piece. “In These Times” should use the “Weekly Poll” feature on their website, to see if their readership wants to hear the counterpoint, and should screen the poll for repeating IP addresses to reduce a fraudulent tally…”

The gauntlet is cast, and the challenge will follow with a paper copy and an email. I can be reached at this email address:
reprehensor.911blogger(at)gmail.com

Thank you,
Allan Giles

Posted by reprehensor on Jul 11, 2006 at 7:46 AM

Allan Giles

Rabbit is entirely supportive of this idea.  Don’t hold your breath though.  ITT regularly runs these pathetic and weak hitpieces on 911 truth.  This is specifically why I cannot ever trust the rag. It is just a left wing gatekeeper and the serious truths like what happened on 911 are not in their interest to publish.

They are merely a presstitute and as such a shame and insult upon their founder.

Anyway Allan Giles the rabbit shall pass the word around and you will get more support, besides which this pathetic and false hit piece of Terry Allen’s is going to be completely devastated by myself and others before we are finished. 

What a foolish turkey this Terry Allen is, the claim of spending months researching is laughable. 

Anyone could find more than enough solid evidence, virtually prove the US admin was complicit and especially that explosives were used in those buildings on 911.  This they could do in a day!

A week would give enough irrefutable facts under the belt to allow anyone to thoroughly debunk the official theory and of course to demolish this base hit piece.

Personally I have been researching 911, for four years now.  Anyone who claims to have done any research on 911, by actually reading what has been written by the people this Shill Terry Allen mentions and checking their facts, and who yet claims scepticism, is a liar or suffering from cognitive dissonance together with a reasoning malfunction.

If one tries to research the official story, it is incredible how little evidence exists to support it and virtually all of it is under serious question. NONE of it proves anything except peripheral points and the story of the nineteen hijackers is itself even apparent fantasy.  A sort of “Laural and Hardy” type play on the fringe of the real events.  Actors and poor ones at that.  Nothing which could suggest a credible scenario that whoever these people were they actually were even on any of the planes.  The magic passport which survived the supposedly superhot fires, which burned everything, except this one passport which lands miraculously at the feet of a policeman, for one.  Not that it proves or disproves anything, except that the incredible co-incidence lends an air of fitted evidence.  No credible chance that any of them could have pulled off even a fraction of what occurred.

Hopefully this truth challenged person will dare to answer his critics, and if he does I suggest he come well armed with real facts and not his spurious claims about an imaginary mastermind in a cave and nineteen mad jihadists. Of course there are no real facts which make a case for the fairy tale and certainly thgere is NOTHING which disproves the “observed fact” that explosives were used on the buildings.  Nothing disproves our alternative theory Mr Allen, I hope you get that. 

You come along with a single bit of evidence that explosives were not used and I’ll be glad to admit I’m wrong.  Also you come along with asingle bit of evidence thatBin Laden was involved and we will be impressed.  The FBI might be glad of it too, since they’ve got nothing.

How could this ninny claim to have spent months researching and yet not know that there is nothing to link Bin Laden?  How could he not realise the number of witnesses to the explosions?  How could he not understand Gravity, or melting/sssoftening points even of steel?  The claims that the fires might have gotten hot enough at their theoretical highest point to have softened the steel, doesn’t take into account the enormous volume of steel involved and that the steel columns would have dissipated the heat too well for a mere fire of such short duration to have had any effect.  Also though steel can be weakened by enough heat, the fires had been dying down long since when the collpases occurred and the steel would have had ample time to return to its original strength even if it had been raised significantly.

I have been a welder for years and I can assure you if Kerosene fires coule be made hot enough to melt of even soften steel, then we would have been saving a lot of money and doing just that, because OXY acetylene and Oxygen which is normally used, is expensive.  Also why do demolitions companies go to so much trouble setting up the explosives necessary for controlled demolitions and charge massive fees for it, if a bit of a fire on the top floors can do the trick, so well in fact as to drop three perfect demos in one day?

Uh uh.  The 911 explosive demolitions of the three WTCs were the very best demolition jobs I’ve ever seen, and while I curse the people who did it to hell, as a professional I have to admit that they were exquisite pieces of work and I doubt many people in the world could have managed it.  We do of course have a good idea of who actually did it, and yes, they are very closely involved with the clean-up too.

The reverse demolitions of the first two buildings were interesting, but not unknown, and to make the story fit at least for the moviegoing public, it had to be in reverse.  Never mind the squibs can be seen running in reverse too.

Of course those who have seen lots of bangs and crashes in the movies and who don’t understand the science or physics involved could be convinced of the official lies.

On the other hand, people who know a bit, who have been involved in the production of special effects for the movies even, cannot help but recognise a professional pyrotechnicians involvement in the actual plane crashes too.  They were not natural plane crashes, something substantial went bang thus dispersing and igniting the fuel on impact.  This also left very little Jet Fuel to fuel the fires and the fact that those fires were not fed by fuel but mostly by office furniture, carpets etc is obvious from the massive columns of black smoke.  In fact an accurate estimate can be made of the fireballs upon impact and this would also show most of the fuel was burnt in a few seconds.

The Ms Allen Shill actually mentions above that

“Scientific theories, on the other hand, depend on interlocking chains of evidence: The integrity of the whole relies on the soundness of each link. Break any one and the theory founders.”

I think that is hilariously funny.  There is no scientific theory about the collapses using fire alone which can account for the events.  The science is entirely speculative and relies on the suspension of the laws of physics on several fronts and the ignoring of an entire central core structural detail.  The design of the WTC which was studied by FEMA and the NIST report was actually fake and critical details were missing to enable the weak theory to look a bit better.  When the faults in the plans was shown, no revisiting of the theories ever happened. 

Meanwhile the theory of explosve demolition is supported by all the evidence, and history,  It is supported by the science, and you cannot deny it you stupid little man, because these sort of collapses can be and are observed to occur in precisely the same way every time a Skyscraper is demolished by explosives.  The witnesses testified to the explosives, the explosives effects are seen during the collapse and the pulverised concrete due to explosives is obvious on the remains of the buildings.  To suggest that anything else is true is hollow denial.  Everything about the collapses was consistent with explosives and that is a fact.  The alternative official theory on the other hand is entirely theoretical and based as said on incomplete information.  The official theory has NO historcial eveidence which suggests it is even possible and so far nobody has been able to create a physical model which would duplicate something we are supposed to believe happened three times in a row on one day in september 2001.  That million dollar reward for doing so is still waiting for any engineer who can prove such bunkum!

Nothing occurred in those collpases which was not consistent with the contention that they were explosive demolitions.  NOTHING! and I dare anyone to suggest otherwise.

That really does leave your official fairy tale as being the one which lacks anything but fanciful speculation while the theory that explosives were used, is supported by all that interlocking evidence. It relies for credibility upon the entire history of human skyscraper buildings, accidents, fires, bombs as well as the history of building demolitions.

Why were the bomb sniffing dogs pulled out from the WTCs in the days leading up to 911?

Ms Allen

The term Pull it, is a term used in Demolition circles though in Oz we might say drop it instead.  The dictionary entry the stupid Mr Allen uses to suggest it isn’t so, is ridiculous.  Its industry slang silly one! Jargon!  You won’t find it in a dictionary.  Just ask a demolition expert.

Perhaps you’d care to explain what Silverstein meant by saying they decided to “pull it”, and don’t try claiming he meant that they should pull the firemen out of there.  In fact all the firemen were out of the building at that time, and there was nobody to pull out.  That spin was tried once long agao, but researchers soon shot it down on those grounds.

The re-insurance of the Silverstein buildings just before 911, especially against terror attacks is just an interesting co-incidence among many I guess.  The put options which were placed on the two airlines just before 911 was also another of those co-incidences. But I expect that Mr Allen is a Co-incidence theorist, so we shall ignore the many co-incidences which suggested foreknowledge.  J

Just because we have so much more solid evidence, we don’t need useless speculation Ms Allen.

Now I repeat.  Science, Physics and chemistry supports the contention that explosives were used.  It does and there is no getting away from that. One doesn’t need to invent radical new theories of pancake collapses and magical steel which somehow weakens at ridiculously low temperatures and somehow stays weak permanently to explain what it would take to bring down those buildings.  One need look no further than how we always drop such buildings in the demolitions industry, in which case the three WTCs were very well executed explosive demolitions, or implosions.  Entirely normal looking and with all the tell tale blasts of squibs and ejected debris for hundreds of feet.

Science is not the friend of the Faith based brigade, those who believe the official story which lacks any credible science or evidence.  The only thing left when evidence or proof is lacking is faith of course.  By reverse argument nobody has a need to convince themselves without evidence that a massive crime has been committed by their own government upon themselves.  Certainly not more than a handful of crazies anyway.  Well, 42% of the USA may be crazies, but they are not the 42% and growing who accept the shocking but unavoidable truth that things are really rotten in the United States of Avarice.

Lets face it guys one day you are claiming your government could never have done such a thing, the next you are trying to explain wars against countries who actually never did a thing to you.  Then you are left justifying offical torture polices and now you even have to tell yourselves that warrantless searches, secret detention and wholesale spying on the public are a good thing.

Is there a pattern in this somewhere?  It sure seems so to this rabbit.

Where is it all going to end people?  Do you not realise that what with having to pretend that the USA is exempt from international law, defending Murders of civilians and systematic rapes and torture on suspicion only, what do you think you will be having to swallow next I wonder?  Where is it all going to end people?

In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 8:03 AM

Dear Ms. Allen,
I read with interest your article “The 9/11 faith
movement.” I agree with your assessment that
“Scientific theories, on the other hand, depend on
interlocking chains of evidence: The integrity of the
whole relies on the soundness of each link. Break any
one and the theory founders.” However, applied to the
“official conspiracy theory,” the theory put forth by
the government also breaks. We don’t have all of the
information to be able to say what really happened up
to and including September 11th, but there are several
links in the official theory that also cause it to
founder. Consider Building 11. There is no scientific
theory which explains it’s collapse other than the
pre-positioning of explosives. It fell in EXACTLY the
manner of controlled demolition. First the center
frame gave way causing a kink in the roof, then squibbs
of debris flew from the windows, then it neatly fell
into it’s footprint at nearly the speed of free fall,
pulling it’s walls in towards it’s center. No steel
framed structure has ever collapsed into it’s
footprint without being demolished. I challenge anyone
to find one. This event alone, aside from any other,
places the official theory in mortal jeapordy.
Researchers attempting to explain it may be unable to
ascribe motive, but, following Occam’s Razor,
controlled demolition is the most productive theory to
pursue. I admire the efforts of those who follow your
advice and apply the scientific method to their
inquires. I encourage you to continue your research.

Posted by huiler on Jul 11, 2006 at 11:12 AM

Speaking as an unacknowleged amateur, I can’t see any plausible reason for buildings of that size to fall outside the footprint.  Given the massive weight involved, even at the upper stories, the amount of force required to drop the building outside its footprint would be proportionately, and implausibly, massive.

By the way, your argument depends upon the precision of your definition for footprint.  If you mean the exact dimensions of the base of the building, then the building fell outside the footprint.  If you include Manhatten Island, then the building fell inside the footprint.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 11, 2006 at 5:35 PM

This is astounding!  That this particular article could be made public under the authority of In These Times leads me to wonder just what is the purpose of this publication?  I am heartened by the fact that so far, all of the follow up letters pour scorn upon this worthless article. I would like to follow the discussion about this article, and I would be interested if Mr. Giles’s rebuttal is made available.  However once I have determined that this discussion thread has been played out I will permantly delete In These Times from my list of bookmarks.  When this sort of excrement is required NewsMax will provide. I suggest others do so as well.
Xyptol

Posted by xyptol on Jul 11, 2006 at 5:56 PM

Major
I’m sorry to have to point it out again.  No such buildings ever did or are expected to fall into their own footprints. You are way out of your depth from the look of that incredibly silly post.

The top of the first building actually was falling sideways and there is no way at that point that it could have straightened itself up. Unless as was observed the entire under stories gave way thus allowing it to straighten again.  Never happened Major Major, and if you are seeking to maintain your delusions its best you run away laddie. There is nothing left amongst the debris of 911 which supports the official fairy story.  I do understand you are an expert with many hours watching hollywood movies, but they are all made up with special effects old boy.  If buildings were so reliable to fall into their own footprints, that three could suddenly happen on one day, then I suggest that developers are wasting millions of dollars on people to come and use explosives to bring them down.  It even happens that an occassional implosion goes wrong it isn’t easy you silly bugger,  if the official theory had any likelihood of succeeding then where is the claimant for the million dollars on offer for anyone who can duplicate the official collapse.  Not even computer models succeeded, until the vectors were tweaked, and tweaked well outside of what happened on the day. Ignorance and faith in government is no substitute for experience and research Major.

Major Major, we know all about cognitive dissonance, you just keep your head down, for you have nothing to gain here unless it is knowledge.  You have nothing to offer either as your first post infers.  You don’t see why they shouldn’t fall into their own footprints eh? Don’t you just Major Major?  It must have come as a surprise then that when the Madrid Skyscraper fire burned at much hotter temperatures for a whole day and night, and even though some floors fell down, that the whole thing didn’t then do what the three in New York did I guess. 

Huiler

Please rest assured that the motive for 911, as well as the actual means is no more a mystery.  Something recently became available on the web, the whistleblower to end all whistleblowers I’d say. His story is long and involved but it is verifiable and I just spent a week doing that. I’m saving it for now, since there are SO MANY other bits of interlocking evidence of what happened on 911.

The simple facts and the unbroken chain of evidence.

On the 11th September, 2001, three steel framed skyscrapers, World Trade Center One, World Trade Center Two and World Trade Center Seven, collapsed entirely. Other than structures bought down in controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered total collapse. World Trade Centers 3, 4, 5 and 6 also suffered significant damage, but none of these suffered the total collapse seen in World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (in fact, these other buildings showed amazing survivability given that they were repeatedly hit by hundreds of tons of pieces of World Trade Centers 1 and 2, which on impact were traveling at well over 100 miles per hour).

It should be emphasized that World Trade Center Seven suffered total collapse. World Trade Center Seven was neither hit by an aircraft nor by falling debris from the twin towers. If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) then it would be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. Although the WTC Seven collapse warrants the writing of a book, we will deal only with the collapses of WTCs One and Two.

The buildings were built to withstand the impact of such aircraft anyway.

And yet Major Major would have been surprised if the buildings had not fallen into their own footprints.  Would you just Major?  Well why exactly would you have expected such a unique event?  Three times in a row! Pull the other one.  Go home Major, you are going to be eaten on this thread. You and the whole 911 faith brigade.  Without any actual proven science to back your silly fairy tale, your belief of the official lie is nothing but faith.

You are attcking a mountain with a small shovel.  You have at least ten very solid facts to explain beyond the falling into footprints, and you can’t even deny the only way it ever did happen before was due to explosives.  You can’t prove that it could have happened the way you say, and you can’t disprove that it was entirely consistent with demolitions.  That is what is called a lose lose situation. 

Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

Terry Allen should enjoy this source since her ad-hominem attacks were clearly directed at Alex Jones.  All you shills and sheeple hate Alex, yes we know.  Personally the rabbit just cannot stand his accent.  You only need to examine the facts, who presents them is immaterial. Any genius who thinks they can debunk any of what is presented by way of verifiable facts, by knocking the source as being biased or whatever, is really scraping the bottom of the barrel due to lack of anything intelligent to say.

Sometimes little chickadees, a person just has to look at the evidence and accept that you have been wrong, and that you have based your beliefs hitherto upon faith, and faith alone.

Rabbit is here to destroy your idiotic faith!  ........^^.......

In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 6:06 PM

I would be interested in a rebuttal from Mr. Giles as well.

Rabbit is quite capable of providing the same.

Posted by David in Canada on Jul 11, 2006 at 6:14 PM

Xyptol

As a longer term resident of this site, let Rabbit assure you they are not what they seem. They ran an even more spurious and lightweight hit piece a while back.  ITT is clearly not to be trusted. 
Stick around though my friend, there are going to be fireworks.

There is a few developments with regards to whistle blowers and also scientific testing which is due to become public in the near future.  This is no doubt why the admins shills are desperately trying to shore up their crumbling wall of lies. The problem they have is that apart from some highly incomplete and farcical reports, there is no actual scientifically proven or even probable scenario to back the official lies. The government agencies involved have witheld all the evidence which would settle some isues and destroyed the rest. This in itself is a crime.  Destroying the evidence is not supposed to be kosher.  But with nothing solid to base the ridiculous and thoroughly debunked official theory upon, the supporters have to resort to personal attacks and emotional rhetoric. 

FBI hides evidence!

The hilarious thing is that this dimwit, Mr Allen actually says things which are ironically exactly why the official story doesn’t float. The need for an unbroken chain of interlocking evidence.  The best they can do is try and debunk individual bits of evidence by inventing theories out of whole cloth, which somehow offer an alternative explanation. Never a beter one mind, just an alternative to admitting the obvious.

The simpe and irrefutable fact is that the chain of interlocking evidence ALL is consistent with controlled demolition.

When the expelled dust clowds seen at each explosion became subject for discussion, a theory of massive air displacement was invented.  Problem with this idea is that it would imply the building had trapped air against which to collapse, while the fall rate of the buildings make it absolutely clear that there was NOTHING, not even enough air pressure to slow down thsoe buildings as they began to fall.  A pancake collapse such as they imagine, would start slow and speed up. It would be expected to get hung up a bit as well on the way down, more at fist, and it would not have fallen straight down, due to the damage already to one side of the buildings.

Each time the fools invent a new theory, it tends to clash with their earlier atempts to explain away what is to all intents and purposes three perfectly executed, garden variety implosions.

They rely upon the incredible gullibility of the US people and their desperate, sad need to believe they are special and that everything is just fine, except for some bad guys a long way away who we have to keep killing forever now, so they don’t do it again.

Hitler would have loved you guys, he could have saved money on Goebbels and just employed a used car salesman.

Hi Dave

This is going to be a feeding frenzy before long.  Just giving the ninnies fair warning of the size of this mountain of evidence, as they rock up with their puny shovels.

One of the most damning witness staements about explosives is that of William Rodriguez. His story was told to the 911 commission and THEY IGNORED IT!  Just like they ignored a lot of evidence.  Rodriguez’ story is completely verified, by fourteen witnesses, and he is not going away into that good night.  One of the witnesss to what he tells, was actually injured by the blast in the basement which PRECEDED the first plane strike and he was saved by Rodriguez who was named a national hero for his efforts. Hero to be sure, but nobody wants to hear what he says do they?  He also saw one of the alleged hijackers sometime before 911casing out the building, and this he also told to the 911 commission. Read his story you cringing denialists and see how you can spin it to maintain your faith based delusions.

Perhaps you might want to ask yourselves why the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings before 911?  Perhaps one of you well researched co-incidence theorists would like to challenge the fact the Bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building?  Come now Rabbit has deliberately not linked that to a source, given no evidence of such a claim.  Isn’t anyone going to challenge him on it?  Go ahead, make my day says the rabbit, who NEVER EVER tells lies and knows the difference between fact and opinion. 

FACT! .............The dogs were taken away some days at least previous to 911. 
OPINION!  ..............That seems a bit suspicious. 
ANOTHER OPINION! ...............That is just a co-incidence.

Would the moronic faith based brigade like some more witnesses?

Of course NOT reading the material is one way to research, isn’t it Mr Allen? 
So Rabbit shall just cut and past to ensure you don’t miss it.  Of course these statements prove nothing on their own, but they are CONSISTANT with explosive demolition, just like every other bit of evidence.

During the afternoon of 9/11, the Mayor of New York city and the Governor of New York state held a press conference.
 
Reporters asked 2 interesting questions:
 
“Is there anything to indicate that there could be MORE BOMBS, more planes out there?”
 
“So, the only National Guard we’ll see will be in lower Manhattan, in the BOMB site area?”
 
Neither the Mayor nor the Governor corrected the reporters by stating that there weren’t any bombs, and that—instead—the twin towers had collapsed due solely to airplane and fire damage.
 
If you were a high-level official trying to calm down the public in a major crisis (which is part of the job description) and there weren’t in fact bombs in t he world trade centers, wouldn’t you have corrected the reporters in order to kill unfounded rumors and minimize panic? Doesn’t this lack of a statement amount to an acknowledgment that the Mayor and Governor believed there were bombs in the twin towers?
 
By way of analogy, imagine that 10 witnesses say they saw Mike shoot Joe. In a press conference, a reporter asks the police chief if police know why Mike shot Joe, and the chief answers without correcting the reporter. In other words, the police chief does not answer by saying something like “No no, Fred shot Joe” or
 
“we don’t know who shot Joe yet, we’ve just started investigating”. Isn’t that further circumstantial evidence that tends to show that Mike shot Joe? Doesn’t the silence in the face of bomb-related questions help corroborate the numerous eyewitness statements of bombs in the trade centers, such as the following:
 
A reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs i n the buildings brought the buildings down;
 
The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were “bombs” and “secondary devices”, which caused the explosions in the buildings;
 
A NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings;
 
A NYC firefighter stated “On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building”;
 
An MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device “and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion” and the police officials believe “that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area”;
 
A NYC firefighter stated “the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rag e because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade”;
 
Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?”—and a lieutenant firefighter the Commisioner spoke with independently verified the flashes;
 
A firefighter said “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions”; Another firefigther stated “it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight”;
 
A paramedic said “at first I thought it was—do you ever see professional demolition where they se t the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop—thats exactly what because thought it was”;
 
A police officer noted “People were saying, ‘There’s another one and another one.’ I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions ...”;
 
A firefighter stated “there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in ‘93” (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center;
 
A firefighter stated “it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV”;
 
Dan Rather said that collapse was “reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen [when] a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down” (CNN’s Aaron Brown and a Fox News reporter also made similar comments);
 
A British newspaper stated “some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a ‘planned implosion’”;
 
One ABC reporter stated it looked like a controlled demolition; another ABC reporter stated “anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down”;
 
A reporter for WNYC radio said “The reporters were trying to figure out what had happened. We were thinking bombs had brought the buildings down”;
 
A Wall Street Journal reporter said “I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the build ing down.” And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions”; and
 
A facilities manager in the north tower “was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons”. You can view links to the source materials for all eyewitness quotes at www.911Proof.com .
 
The 9/11 Commission Report did not even once mention the word “explosion” or “bomb”. The mainstream media hasn’t touched the evidence of bombs in the trade center. Democratic and republican politicans smear anyone who even raises the issue as a conspiracy nut. Isn’t it time that we faced the elephant in the living room? Can our democracy survive if we don’t?

Survive?  I would have thought that this sort of Pravda under communism type controlled and fake media, is evidence that your democracy is already dead.  You let it die you goons, by giving up the responsibility to keep an eye on it and defend it from within.  Your enemies are right there in the whitehouse.  Having stolen two elections almost without a hitch, they are not going to give back your country without a fight.  Is that any reason to bend over and get shagged everytime they demand it?.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 6:33 PM

This is an important reference for it deals specifically with the fine tuning of some of the erroneous reporting and analysis by others. This matters because it shows that people are serious about getting at the truth and that due to the amount of evidence being witheld, and despite the huge amount we actually have, we cannot expect to get all the details right at this or any stage.  The overrall argument stands unchallenged still and so far nobody on the official side has dared to try and tackle the science.  As such this useless piece of claptrap by Mr Allen is typical of the response to the well researched and verifiable science of people like Griffin, Reynolds, Jones and others.

Emotional rhetoric and ad-hominem attacks, how long do you think you can keep your fairy tale flying on this alone?  Especially when up against science, witnesses, video evidence, history and a growing chorus of outraged world citizens.

Perhaps the denialists of the faith based brigdade are haiving a problem with all these alternative media sources?  Here are more than 200 smoking guns found in the MSM.  maybe you “researchers” should keep it handy so you can verify the facts as they are mentioned on “reliable sites”.

The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, “Tripod II,” quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 1/2 hour lunch fired.

Hmm, that was a lot of security around the rushed effort to dispose of the evidence! No worries though, the governement wouldn’t lie right?

                                                WRONG!

The government claimed Osama Bin Laden was the culprit and did so from the very start.

Well it has taken a while for the proof to emerge, but we did suspect it all along.  FBI has NO EVIDENCE of Bin Laden’s involvment.  OOPS! 

say again? 

NO EVIDENCE of Bin Laden.  Um but didn’t we atack Afghanistan because of their refusal to hand over Bin Laden?  Well actually we atacked them because they said they would only hand him over if there was any evidence he was involved.  As they rightly pointed out, Bin Laden did not have the resources to pull this off.  In fact there is nobody who could concievably have pulled this off, without massive inside help.

There is more in the “chain of evidence” which does not support the official fairy tale about the nineteen mad arabs.NO arabs on flight 77, according to the autopsy.  What does it prove?  Nothing, except it is consistent with the official story lacking any proof.

View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed

The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767’s. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707’s, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970’s.

Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions.

Does Ms Allen’s “research” make her more qualified than this Finnish military expert?  Perhaps we can hear a scientific rebuttal then?

Oh of course what is the rabbit thinking. The guy is Finnish and these were American buildings.  (Bad rabbit has probably just wasted your best answer there, sorry.)

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 7:20 PM

Science?  Sure, why not?

For a building to fall outside its footprint, however that footprint is defined, it would have to fall some specified distance from the center of its footprint.  Let’s assume that a building (the center of its drop zone) falls y feet from its footprint.  Then the force required to move it that distance would be F=kmg, where:

m = the mass of the building,
g = the gravitational constant, and
k = y/h, for h = the height of the building.

So the force would, in fact, have to proportional to the weight, mg, of the building.

But, despite the above, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it’s possible for a building to fall far from its footprint, thereby threatening the integrity of the buildings adjacent to it, and the additional lives of the people who occupy them.  In such a situation, it would not be unreasonable to provide the means to pull it down.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 11, 2006 at 7:34 PM

Why NORAD Interceptors Couldn’t Catch Those 911 Boeings.

More miltary experts.

More military opinions. Col. Ronald D. Ray asks why half a trillion defense budget couldn’t protect Pentagon, astounded at “conspiracy theory” put out by government

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Proof that some 911 witnesses statements, supporting the official lies, were skewed.  Lap it all up, Ms Allen.  Rabbit has a whole lot more research material for you to look at.  Considering what a couple of months of “research” has done for your knowledge, it will take you the rest of your life to actually learn the truth, but what the heck, you don’t want to know it anyway, do you dear?

Now as I said repeatedly the three collapses were just like implosions all over the world.  Here is a recent one for comparison. That implosion looks just as if it pancaked, lo and behold.  Don’t be fooled by the fact that implosion uses traditional cutting charges without thermite, and it is on a scale smaller in comparison to the two WTCs at least.  Compare the actual collapse, the manner and rate of collapse.  That is all you need to see to know it is a controlled demo.  If anybody can get abuilding to collapse by any other method, it has yet to be found.  Theorising that on 911, this magical unknown method, somehow defied any odds to happen thre times in a row, on the same day for christs sake is nothing without experimental data, and anyone who can produce it can claim the one million dollar reward offered by Jimmy Walter.

Now why didn’t those texans learn from 911 and just light a fire on the top floors?  Any ideas my faithful little morons?

Major Major, your speculation is ridiculous, you are playing like a child in the sand here. Go away or else read more and blather less.

The “means to pull it down,” takes about two to three weeks (for a team) to install in such buildings you dumb beggar!

Also your farcical attempt to create some sort of scientific formula, is neglecting a small matter of the counterforce of the structural features of the buildings.  These would slow the initial collapse, or more likely stop it altogether.  I’m not sure what sort of fairy stories you believe in Major but if the skyscrapers are built so flimsy that a few floors collapsing would take out the rest of the building, I’m surprised you dare walk anywhere near skyscrapers normally.  They must be awefully flimsy structures,and I’d say the engineers who built those buildings must have seriously screwed up.

Can you get your wee head around the following. Imagine the sort of wind sheer which engineers must allow for when designing such skyscapers?  Can you get anywhere near close to understanding the enormous amount of force which is being applied to one side or another of a building when it is in a small breeze even?  Let alone the sort of massive forces of a hurricane, which they are OVERENGINEERED against.  Can you even understand that there is a lot of effort which goes into engineering a building to withstand an airplane crash?  Does it even occur to you that in fact the requirement for such plans to be passed, let alone the buildings to be built, is that they allow for the worst possible scenario and “over-engineer” the damned thing well beyond the worst possible scenario? Well, they do.  So you have learnt that much today.  Hopefully.

The fact is the bomb in the basement of 1993, was far more capable of having brought the WTC down than a jet crash and a few hours of fire..  Yet that massive bomb, barely scratched the building.  Those WTCs were unusually designed, but not in the sense that some apologists try to spin it.  They were an uncommonly strong structure, and had far above normal levels of over engineering, built in redundancy, than most such Skyscrapers.  That can be established if you go and look at the things which are still on tyhe web from before 911.  The buildings were known to be white elephants.  There was a huge problem, gargantuan, which made them a liability and that was the Asbestos.  The simple truth is, and I will give the sources later, the buildings were massively ensured, against terrorism specifically just before 911, all three buildings belonged to Larry Silverstein. 

By an incredible co-incidence a couple of months after having the foresight to re-insure these problematic buildings against terrorism, Mr Silverstein saw all three fall down boom, due to “terrorism” and the payout was lovely.  What luck! What a lucky fellow.  Instead of a multi-million dollar cleanup bill, or maybe even a demolition which was no doubt considered, for the fact of the matter was there was no easy solution for these buildings. 

Not that those facts prove anything.  They are just co-incidences.  Amazing co-incidences.  Serendipity! We understand that little faith filled deniars.  BUT these co-incidences are consistent are they not?

Just go and read about the structure of the WTCs and especially the inbuilt redundancy of the construction. Major it is painfully obvious you know nothing about enginering or demolitions, and that you have read NONE of the references given.  Instead of the knee jerk debunking of the cognitive dissonant cowards who like to dream of humping the flag and holding Dubyas hand, you need to do some reading of the actual arguments behind the contention that explosives were used.

Besides, can’t you even see that you are merely trying to stretch a theory to try and explain something which has not only got a logical and verifiable explanation, but every other bit of evidence besides is also consistent with it. That is such a puny and sad little way to go about trying to debunk a very well founded contention.  You are actually doing what the Mr Allen claims we do, but of course his piece is a completely ironic bit of grobble.

Doesn’t a person with your sort of reasoning difficulties comprehend that just because you can come up with a possible explanation for SOME of the evidence, that this doesn’t of itself alter the fact that the most plausible explanation is ours and it is backed by an unbroken chain of interlocking evidence? 

Major Major has a funny idea of what science is.  He thinks it is something you can pick and choose in detail. 

So the force would, in fact, have to proportional to the weight, mg, of the building say Major.

and directly disproportionate to the force exerted by the nether structure. says Issac Newton.

Of course this is exactly why we know the buildings were imploded.  The actual fall times are possible only by removing the structural resistance, instantly, on all levels.  Or as is done, in a wave just prior to each section falling.

Look at the videos Major and see what you see. Rabbit has no desire to crush you like a bug, but if you are going to play around on this thread you are so utterly out of your depth you will suffer badly.  The only people who will survive trying to argue the well proven contention that the buildings were brought down by explosives and that the Adminsitartion was involved, are the sort of desperate and totally corrupt shills. They will do this by smoke and mirrors and strawmen, by ad-hominem atacks and rhetorical wank.

Since I already know you are at least above that sort of rubbish, you don’t have a chance.  Rabbit really means it Major, do please read the sources given and see if things don’t seem a bit more obvious than a mere faith based acceptance of the “Holy” commission report would suggest.

You need to answer for yourself, Major, as to why the evidence was so quickly and carefully destroyed and the rest witheld.  Remember mate, not even the commission was allowed to view most of this evidence.  You don’t feel a bit suspicious about that by any chance?

Again it proves nothing, but it is consistent with our contention.  If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

What about Rodriguez, doesn’t his story earn more than you just ignore it?  The guy saved a lot of lives dude, and you are just going to consign his story to the dustbin without even looking at it?

Doesn’t it make the Major just alittle bit suprised to hear the FBI doesn’t have any proof that Bin Laden did it?  Do you think that we make this stuff up bloke?  Get over it old fella.  Neither Rabbit nor the many Scholars for 911truth, nor the thousands of activists in the field, have so little else to do, that we would be making anything up. We can make mistakes, but unlike the Government we will review these as they become apparent.

It is us who are showing respect for those murdered by trying to find the truth which has been covered up, and withheld from the world.  You and people like you who would rather not look, just hurry on past and pretend it is all OK, are the craven curs, the cringing cowardly sheeple, who dare not challenge a bullshit story for fear their nice safe existence may seem less safe and secure.
This where the claim by Mr Allen that we who challenge the official theory are somehow the ones looking for security and safety.  That is just a patently farcical claim.  Mr Allen sure has handed us his ass on a plate.  He has also given an excellent double edges sword or two.  I love the bit about an unbroken chain of scientific evidence.  Not for the first time one is left wondering if indeed the persons who write these hopeles hit pieces are secretly just opening the door for others to speak the truth.  They just make it so easy.  I guess there isn’t much one can do when one’s own story is so full of holes and has NO ACTUAL proven scientific theory behind it.  Don’t forget, when someone can actually prove the official theory possible, they could win one million dollars.  So Major if you think you can do this why don’t you have a shot? Is a million not enough to attract your interest?

By the way, I have run a few experiments with a low pressure kerosene powered jet engine, and a small piece of steel.  The heat of that flame was obviously higher than the imperfect open burning condition in the WTCs and the steel has much less hermal inertia due to its small volume. 

After about two hours the steel was hot but the heat was also spreading along the whole length and after four hours the steel was still not bending, even with a fair weight on it. At no time did the steel get even an orange glow to it.  Five minutes after the fire was shut, the steel had equalised in temperature the excellent thermal conduction of steel is why and of course with even a high school Chemistry knowledge anyone should understand this.  Have we seen the size of the steel columns that you are trying to kid yourself got softened by even cooler fires than that?  To collaspe straight down they would all have had to sften and give way at the same moment in time.  That is a fact and you will find no demolitions expert anywhere who will say otherwise.  When rigging up for suh an implosion, all the columns must be cut, as close to simultaneously as possible.  The occassional accidents when all doesn’t go according to plan are due to the failure to achieve this exact condition.

It isn’t somthing that happens on its own, and not three times on one day.  If the chances of it happening are one to one hundred, then the chances of it happening twice on one day would have to be one in one thousand.  Would anyone like to complete the mathematics for the chances of it happening three times in one day?  Does a chance of 1 in 100,000 make you feel confident that is what happened?  Now I gave a conservative estimate to start, since actually the chances of it happening once are actually one in millions.

Those who repeat the fake points and spin the impossible theories in a chorus of faith and patriotism, are directly involved in the coverup of the murder of 3000 of your fellows.  The truth hurts for sure, but sometimes we have to face up to pain since cowardice is a less palatable option .  At least it is for some.

Being a pyrotechnician, the rabbit also did another experiment.  I have made thermite before, that is what Sparklers are in case anyone doesn’t know.  It is also used occasionally in welding, though I never have.  When professor Jones wrote about Thermate being the likely explosive used to cut the columns, Rabbit was interested.  Mixed up some Thermate and popped a bit of Sulpher in too.  Voila, thermate.  Well it ignited easier than usual, that was the first thing Rabbit noticed. The next thing was that it cut amazingly quickly through the steel it sat on.  Much quicker than thermite alone which only really welded itself into a molten puddle of the steel surface.  Enough if it was followed up with a cutting charge which is how I’d always assumed they’d done it. 

Steven Jones God bless him has indeed found the answer to exactly what was used, even before confirming it via tests.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 7:38 PM

Scholars for 911 truth is a group of distinguised and qualified scholars who lose none of their authority by virtue of challenging the official whitewash.  You cannot continue to attack the credibility automatically of anyone who speaks out, if you cannot even tackle what they say directly except by quoting small bits out of context and tearing down strawmen.  Yet it is the only sort of answer we seem to get from the faith based brigade.

Scholars for 911 truth. Do check out the list of members there are a lot of them and they have combined more knowledge and experience than all those who still try to support the official conspiracy theory.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholars find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach—which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President’s closest adviser—of “creating our own reality.”

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 8:43 PM

Something else from the Scholars for 911 truth press release.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory—that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about—is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Rabbit shall rest for awhile, but if anybody wants to post the recent chemical analysis claims which show that Thermate was the explosive used, be my guest. 

Let’s save the story of Mr Grove, for the finale. The coup degrace so to speak.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 8:48 PM

But, despite the above, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it’s possible for a building to fall far from its footprint, thereby threatening the integrity of the buildings adjacent to it, and the additional lives of the people who occupy them.  In such a situation, it would not be unreasonable to provide the means to pull it down.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 11, 2006 at 8:34 PM

He may have a point here, Rabbit. Maybe Major Major is dropping a hint?

I have imagined that a “fallback” position,  and admission, would be that the buildings were pulled or brought down to avoid a collapse that would have involved adjacent buildings etc ect ... a “greater good” sort of argument and they would justify the prepositioning of explosives for a controlled demolition as a valid response to the possibilty of further attacks after the 1993 incident. Get it? A cover up position for the cover up.

Just suppositions on my part. But interesting to think about.

Posted by David in Canada on Jul 11, 2006 at 9:12 PM

Dave

If they haven’t thought of it, they will now.

They have actually already started to prepare the ground for this, I’ve noticed a tendency to repeat a specific new bit of detail which has as far as I can see no factual basis.  It is being mentioned in passing but nothing made of it and it is being done by people from within the truth seeking ranks.  It becomes apparent from Grove’s account that the truth movement is well and truly infiltrated with misinformants, as if we didn’t know.  It is sad for me to see that a couple I respected are mentioning this little detail.  Eventually it may serve as the hook upon which they’ll hang that fallback position. 

Actually since they removed the dogs just before 911, this would be the time they put in those explosives “just in case”, what amazing foresight!  This proves the government is actually on top of things and doing all in its power to protect the poor little diddums’.  Of course it will be like bread and butter for the co-incidence theorists.  Naturally they knew about the attacks, but didn’t want to “terrify” people by telling them before hand.

It is rubbish but will gain credence in the minds of desperate people by its mere mention.  So Rabbit shall remain silent.  Suffice it to say, I am using the fact of it’s repetition as being an implication the speaker is a misinformation agent.

Of course this fallback position would not make any difference to the overall pattern of deciet, but it will buy enough of the consciousness of these craven morons who would rather go blind into a cave full of monsters than turn on the bloody lights at least!

Like kids hiding under the pillow, that’s a lot of Americans.  Scared of the boogey man, hiding under the pillow, Pillow Biters.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 10:11 PM

High-Ranking Military
Officers And Airline Pilots
Agree Flt 175 Did Not
Hit WTC South Tower

By Dave vonKleist
The Power Hour
12-15-5

Startling new revelations about the 9/11 attacks were recently released on The Power Hour radio program. Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, “The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175”.  After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, “That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted.”
 
( www.thepowerhour.com/news2/replay_aug8_2005.htm )
 
This shocking conclusion is also being echoed by other military officers and commercial airline pilots.
 
Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, “The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage”. A mysterious “flash” is also seen in the clips that indicate possible incendiary events took place before the planes entered the towers.
 
Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place.
 
Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, US Army (ret.), an expert in photo analysis, reviewed the photos taken at the Pentagon before the collapse and concluded, “The plane does not fit in that hole!” indicating that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 strike.
 
This explosive information not only brings into question the official story of the September 11th attacks, but also the real motives behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the War on Terror, the beneficiaries of government contracts, and the resulting legislation like the USA Patriot Act that was passed without review by Congress after the 9/11 attacks.
Because an increasing number of military personnel, civilian pilots, physicists, educators and law enforcement officials are now questioning the official story of hijackers responsible for the attacks on September 11th , 2001, there is a call for the re-opening of an investigation into the 911 attacks. ( www.reopen911.org )
 
The video clips and photographs examined are included in the controversial documentary, “911 In Plane Site” a Power Hour production. ( www.911inplanesite.com )

Nothing new hear, but it probably is news to Terry Allen, despite having spent months researching 911.  Do these people seem like those conspiracy theorists you were babbling on about in your hitpiece Ma’am?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 10:34 PM

“There are instead engineers and scientists who have clearly detailed why it is not possible for the fires and planes to have brought down the buildings, and despite the massive ad-hominem attacks such people are made to suffer whenever they speak out, exactly why more don’t, NOBODY has ever actually tackled the hard science behind these claims.”

Judging from “the massive ad-hominem attacks” you make against anyone who appears to disagree with your conclusions, you would be better advised to follow your own advice.  Aside from the hypocrisy of it all, it alienates anyone from even considering the evidence you present, and reinforces the general presumption that anyone who disagrees with the official government explanation for 911 is either monomaniacally deranged or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

So please, explain for us, once more, how it might be possible to move the enormous mass of a building as large as the World Trade Center beyond its footprint.  You would think that the architects and engineers who built the structure would design the buiding to do exactly that, to avoid corollary damage to adjacent structures.  Moreover, if such an unlikely event were to occur, I would hope that municipal protocols would include the possibility and provide countermeasures to limit the fallout to neighboring structures.  In fact, you might be able to construct your counter-conspiracy thesis on the basis of these protocols.

In any case, as it stands, you appear to be cherry-picking the facts to support your own pre-determined conclusions.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 11, 2006 at 10:54 PM

No ad-hominem attacks Major.  My entire posting series is factual, it is full to the brim with lots of well verified facts and these are interwoven into a tapestry which can be both understood and navigated with ease.

The thrust of my argument is logical and fact based.  Opinions are given; but the factual basis for these are also given so too the train of reasoning which led to these opinions.

If being a rabbit of a somewhat feisty nature results in language which occassionally says more than the issue but which draws attention to the paucity of his opponents reasoning and motives, then it is not, by virtue of the overall construct, ad-hominem.

My dear Major.

As for your little made up bit theory.  How about instead you toddle off and find something to support your own admittedly unfounded suppositions.  You scallywags are always expecting people to prove the negative.

Just a wee hint Major Major, even given a free kick on your “supposition”, you cannot use it to explain how the building which toppled the wrong way, actually straightened up.  Due to the conservation of the momentum and the laws of gravity, you cannot explain this fact with your maximally stretched theorising.

This Minor Major, is one very good way to make sure a building does not fall into its own footprint.  If it starts toppling off to any side like that, if the force from above is continuous, (gravity is constant so it is) and it is meeting resistance then the momentum of the toppling tower floors would have continued in the same arc as they began.  The only way that could have straigtened up is if the lower floors turned to water suddenly.  Sort of what happens when you pull a building with a well set up demolition job.  Like I said before Major, a GREAT demolition job, the best in history.  These would have been famous even if they’d emptied the buildings and cleared the area first.

The video shows not only the severe tilt, but another “minor” point which also IS CONSISTENT with controlled demolitions, did we see what it was?  The building top started to fall AWAY from the direction of impact.  The side which was damaged should logically have begun to collapse on the damaged side. Even if one suspends all the other impossibilities, this one still cannot be answered by the official line of bullshit.  These are eminently simple facts Major and if you are not just in a complete panic, which given the ferocity of an angry rabbit is not impossible, then just establish the truth or not of this little, almost peripheral detail to the whole picture.  It is consistent with a controlled demo, that must be a given, but can you actually seriously now try and claim that this fact too could have some entirely other explanation?  If so, by what margin Major?  Does it strengthen the accumalated mixed bag of ad-hoc theories and outside possibilities?  Does this incredible co-incidence combine with all the other incredible co-incidences to form a complete and believable scenario which you can comfortably use to justify making wars and torturing people as well as give up the basic rights and liberties you once took for granted? 

Another of those things where the only actual history supports our contention, and the theory to explain this otherwise unexplainable event can at best only present an outside chance, for some of the situation, while being congruent with another equally irrefutable fact.
Rabbit is not cherry picking the facts you silly man.  He is presenting the facts they are verifiable in all cases.  The contentions which are being made are based upon well explained reasoning and the science is indisputable but you are welcome to try.

It must seem like we are cherry picking the facts to support the Implosion and inside job theories, but there is a very logical reason for this.  There are no facts which support the official crap, what is called by some as eveidence will be shown if and when it turns up to be circumstantial only and full of holes, and contradictions.  Exactly the sort of spurious, false and hence AD-HOMINEM words of Terry Allen point out that this isn’t the way to build a believable theory.

Now Major if there is anything which actually supports your story please come out with it, but if you wish only to try and poke about with small molehills as if they are the mountain you are never going to get to the peak of understanding.  If all you can do is take some small component of an “interlocking chain of evidence” and raise some small possibility an altrenative explanation might suffice for that one point, you are not going to be taken seriously even. 

Then rather than ad-hominem what you’ll get is taunting, as you well know old fellow.

One has to ask oneself, are you even reading any of the articles you so blithely think can be answered in one hit by clever old Major making it up as he goes along?  The one million dollar reward is still unclaimed Major and it isn’t going to be as easy as making up theories about engineering and demolitions and not even reading what the experts who are contradicting the official holy report are actually saying..

If you have anything more which you feel might bgive an alternate picture of the truth, Major, do feel free to share it.  You might as well assume however that Rabbit has seen pretty much all there is, and that includes the official rubbish and the few half assed reports which sort of dance about with lots of ifs and buts but do not make a case which is not already thoroughly debunked, doubted and disproven on many fronts.  The official story is so full of major omissions that it is more like a hole than a net to catch the facts and interpret them. If you can prove other wise be my guest.

The truth of it is that the relevant facts necessary to completely disprove the official lies, are already presented here on this forum.  Despite first appearances, it’s more concise than it seems I promise.  This is not even the end of it, not by half, but unless people can take the few hours necesary to look at what are undisputed facts and how they are connected, and what they imply.  Not just seems a bit crook, but which is completely such a load of unbelievable, disprovable rubbish imaginable.  Once you make the break and see the lie, the whole thing makes a hell of a lot more sense and the CONSISTENCY if nothing else of the Bush government is plain to see.  It is the moment for most when they finally realise “The Emperor Has NO CLOTHES”.  It is a shock but I’d guess the bigger shock is looking back and having to comprehend that there are still many others who blindly parrot the fairy story without any real ability to quantify any detail, they just believe it and will defend it against all logic. 

One piece of logic is mising from the whole 911 debate, and its AWOL state is just the usual surreal state of affairs these days.  The once fairly simple notion that a theory only needed to be disproven once, for it to lose credibility.  No matter how many glaring irregularities some of which entirely demolish the official lie, not mone of them seems to put the finish to this ridiculous tory, many still buy it, but then many still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911, or that he was minutes away from attacking the USA in 2003, and that the earth is flat and all manner of nonsense.  Gravity is real my little babies, it is constant, and steel doesn’t turn into water because some crazy old arab in a cave in the wilderness wants it to.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 11, 2006 at 11:41 PM

xyptol—- stay around….
Canuck, major, good to seeya, must to work go.

I see that Terry believes in SOME conspiracy theories —- Access to birth and death certificates outlawed, to protect polluting Bushist companies from epidemiological research…

911 has been used as the “killer” argument for all the evil that has happened since, so I will digress JUST a little from subject to pass some new info.

        CONFIDENTIAL FM TASHKENT AMBASSADOR TO FCO 18 march 2003

I was horrified when the massive assault on Iraq started. I knew both that Iraq did not really possess WMDs, and that our weapons were much less precise than the news propaganda claimed; tens of thousands of civilians were dying.

Given that we were supporting the dictator Karimov, I thought it was pretty rich to be claiming to attack Hussein because he was a dictator. I was then outraged to see on BBC World TV a speech by George Bush saying we were going to war in Iraq to dismantle Hussein’s torture apparatus. I had just been informed that torture material was legitimate in the War on Terror.

I therefore sent the following telegram. This was the only protest from any British Ambassador at our entering on an illegal war, abandoning the UN Security Council, and following blindly George Bush’s violent and acquisitive foreign policy.

Craig Murray May 2006

This is a small example of his revelations, which were posted on the net on the Fourth of July…

BlairCo are trying to shut his site down, but it is widely mirrored , and equally valid for Americans to check out, as were the Downing Street Memos. SITE

Posted by frog on Jul 12, 2006 at 2:13 AM

frog has added to last one with edit. Do have a look !

In the UK the Dear Leader’s Inquiry Act 2005 came into power last month.

Shades of the KEAN COMMISSION any inquiry into 7/7 in London would be conducted under the following rules, with which Stalin would have been happy.

Under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005:

- the inquiry and its terms of reference would be decided by the executive; no independent parliamentary scrutiny of these decisions would be allowed;
- each member of an inquiry panel, including the chair of the inquiry, would be appointed by the executive and the executive would have the discretion to dismiss any member of the inquiry;
- the executive can impose restrictions on public access to the inquiry, including on whether the inquiry, or any individual hearings, would be held in public or private;
- the executive can also impose restrictions on disclosure or publication of any evidence or documents given, produced or provided to an inquiry;
- the final report of the inquiry would be published at the executive’s discretion and crucial evidence could be omitted at the executive’s discretion, “in the public interest”.

In their AI Report 2006, Amnesty succinctly summarised the act as follows:

The Inquiries Act 2005 came into force in June 2006. It undermined the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and human rights protection. It therefore failed to provide for effective, independent, impartial or thorough public judicial inquiries into serious human rights violations. AI called for its repeal.

The July 7th Truth Campaign supports the joint calls of Amnesty International, The Law Society of England and Wales, the Finucane Family Campaign and other legal, human and civil rights organisations, in their opposition to any inquiry conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005, including any inquiry into July 7th, should it ever be granted. We also support Amnesty International’s call to repeal the Inquiries Act 2005.

One may replace the words “the executive” with the Decider

Posted by frog on Jul 12, 2006 at 3:41 AM

Terry J. Allen compares those who would repeat the testimonials of the FDNY about the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION to those who intentionally spread HIV-AIDS.

In These Times has been used just like a dirty syringe by Terry J. Allen.  Problem is, she was trying to use it on us. 

What caused hardened steel to melt and melt for 6 weeks?  Thermate.

What caused concrete to polverize before it hit the ground?  Explosives.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 9:02 AM

http://www.911revisited.com

Terry J. Allen = Ann Coulter

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 9:08 AM

Diggins
have a look at the other twelve articles by terry.

Posted by frog on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:01 AM

Here is an email sent to Mr. Allen:

Interesting article.  I think many in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth understand that we need to stay away from the pile theory.  Not because what we can prove is not worthy, but because there is always an issue that is not air-tight (and subject to rejection by those in lock-step with our government).  Please read the letter sent below addressing this very issue and making a point that is rock solid.  It is my contention in this letter that the Truth movement is the defense team and all we have to do is prove reasonable doubt.  Though it is everywhere in the government story, the one major issue I present below, including the link to the paper, is rock solid.  This centers on the collapse times of the buildings.  Though one can bicker forever on what exactly happened that caused the collapses, the speed at which they fell is totally impossible related to the theory presented that fire and gravity explain the collapses (these are laws of nature and cannot be altered).  Unfortunately, a building collapsing by fire and turning into dust at the collapse zone cannot collapse this fast (near freefall).  The letter below walks you through the paper and locks this point down.

Feel free to respond with an arguement. 

Letter:

Just wanted to thank you for this entire exercise related to the 9/11 Truth process.  It has occurred to me that I, and all that feel compelled to speak out about this issue, have been going about it all the wrong way.  We continue to let ourselves get sucked into a debate about all facts related to the event about which we cannot possibly have all the answers.  We allow our critics to knock us down with any argument that we do not have the answer for or are mistaken as to its correctness or context.  Again, I want to thank you for assisting in understanding this shortcoming.  I think it is serving me, and hopefully those who feel as I do, well.

With that said, it is my feeling that if a hole can be punched in the official story that does not require myriad qualifications or specific evidence, that, in and of itself, can draw into question the remainder of the official story.  Here is my reasoning:  It is my feeling that those on the Truth Movement side are similar to the defense team in a criminal trial.  We don

Posted by rugbyzhg on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:46 AM

Remember, the proof need not be complicated.  I don’t need to prove exactly how long it should have taken you to run that distance.  Nor do I need to prove how much longer it would have taken if you stopped to place a bet at the dog track.  To disprove your story, I only need to show that the story you gave me is not physically possible.

The premise on which Dr. Wood begins her paper is the collapse time of WTC2 (the South Tower) as reported on Page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report.  It states that the building collapsed in 10 seconds.  Her paper then walks through the scenario that a billiard ball, if dropped at every 10-story interval precisely as the billiard ball from the previous 10 story interval passes by would take a total of 31 seconds for all of the 11 billiard balls to hit the ground.  This process is based on the government contention that progressive collapse initiated at the top and progressed entirely through the building and that all of the floors were disintegrated as they fell (if they remained in tact, would there not have been a pile of concrete floors remaining many stories high?).  Even if the collapse started at the 80th floor at the airliner impact zone, it should have taken more than 23 seconds using every 10th floor.  The government has indicated that as the collapse progressed, that it did not occur anywhere else until the collapse wave reached the individual floors from above.  She then modifies her model to involve each floor, one falling to the next, pulverizing into dust, initiating the fall of the next floor, initiating the next, and so forth.  This collapse would have taken 97 seconds for 110 floors, or more than 65 seconds from the 80th floor.  As the casual observer can surmise, these times are far greater than the actual times as reported by the Commission.

She then creates a model that would have the building collapse in the 10 seconds reported.  To create this model using the every 10 floors criteria, she determines that the ball on the 100th floor would have to start falling 0.429 seconds after the ball on the 110th floor is released (which takes 2.8 seconds to reach the 100th floor), and so on for all balls.  This would allow all the balls to reach the ground at the same time and within the 10 seconds needed.  Unfortunately, that presents a problem.  If the floors below the demolition wave move out of the way before they are hit by the floors above, what will pulverize all the concrete in the floors above?  Should they not fall into a stack with the lower floors by and large remaining in tact save cracking by the weight of the floors coming down from above?  Further, how could the lower floors start moving before being hit if there has been nothing to cause their collapse?

Dr. Wood reminds the reader that she did not take into account the natural resistance of the steel structure that, even if weakened around the collapse zone, would have caused the collapse to slow down, particularly at the beginning when there was less weight, as it progressed.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Posted by rugbyzhg on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Based solely upon this simple, yet elegant proof, she has proven that the government theory about the collapses is mathematically and physically impossible.  She doesn

Posted by rugbyzhg on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Well Terry,

Your critics have certainly proved your point beyond the slightest doubt. 

This “truth” movement is a religion.  Or more accurately, a cult.

If this movement ever makes it past an occasional appearance on cable tv or talk radio, where their main weapon of argument is simply strength of conviction, they will inevitably be forced to confront the cruel crushing weight of reality.  (1 mb pdf)

I understand your motivation in attempting to diffuse this nonsense.  It’s a major embarrasment and distraction, and can only undermine the effort of the left to regain political power in Washington or anywhere, for that matter.

Thanks, Rabbit!!

——————————-vv—————————-  (content below this line added 8/5/06)

Before you incorporate the arguments put forth by the 9/11 “truth” movement into your daily interactions with friends and family, you may want to fact check them first, and consider them in the context of common sense.  You will be spared possibly permanent embarrassment if you simply run your revelation du jour through the following before opening your mouth at that party, or sending that email to that friend who still assumes you are sane.—- Natalie, the Fruit Bat.  mmmmm…....fruit

9/11 myths
Debunking 911
Peer reviewed papers debunking the “truth” movement.
(using Steven E. Jones’ standard for peer review)  ;-)

16% of people believe in UFOs.  6% believe in bombs and missiles.

(most of this 6% don’t have more than a high school education and/or live in trailer parks)  (not that there’s anything wrong with that—I don’t, and I used to!)

Not a single institute of Structural, Civil, Fire and Safety or Demolition Engineers on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Architects on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Engineers in any field on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

Which begs the question— Why do you?  Oh yeah…...faith.

——————————-  content below this line added 8/10/06 —————————————

We all know that the select group of incredibly intelligent and talented people who are capable of designing and building huge structures such as the World Trade Center Twin Towers universally agree that a combination of airplane impact damage, heat from fire and gravity caused their collapse.

However, it should also be noted that another group of highly accomplished people, comprised of those that are capable of safely demolishing such structures, concurs.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 11:37 AM

I understand your motivation in attempting to diffuse this nonsense.  It’s a major embarrasment and distraction, and can only undermine the effort of the left to regain political power in Washington or anywhere, for that matter.

Anyone for a Freudian slip ?

Rugbyzig, elegant and logical post mon vieux. ,

Natalie is our resident Natty Bat Vampire Shill, a creature of Darkness only happy when arguing for increasing use of DU, DDT, military force, a defender of the true PNAC faith .

Posted by frog on Jul 12, 2006 at 12:15 PM

If it starts toppling off to any side like that, if the force from above is continuous, (gravity is constant so it is) and it is meeting resistance then the momentum of the toppling tower floors would have continued in the same arc as they began.  The only way that could have straigtened up is if the lower floors turned to water suddenly.

So, what?

If part of a structure is torquing off its vertical axis, due to the resistance of the remaining structure below, then the structure will continue to torque off its vertical axis until the resistance is removed.  And if the NYFD or whatever other organization in charge of public safety decides to remove the structural resistance to reduce collateral loss of lives due to catastrophic damage to adjacent structures, then how does that prove anything other than the intent to restrict additional loss of life.  For all we know, many other structures throughout the world are similarly equipped.  Naturally, the owners of the buildings would be disinclined to advertise the alternative.

But it doesn’t prove that the neocons destroyed the World Trade Center by initiating a clandestine controlled demolition.  And if you hope to show that they demonstrate a greater disregard for human rights and the unbiased rule of law than the liberals or the left, then you’ll have to prove it.  Otherwise we get smeared by idiots like Natalie who believe the neocons are the greatest thing since sliced shit.

If you want to accuse me of being the victim of cognitive dissonance, or a shill for the Bush administration, or whatever, then have at it.  I’ve become accustomed to being insulted by the wingnuts on this website, and I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to reciprocate.  Just add your compliments to the queue.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 12, 2006 at 1:39 PM

Natalie is our resident Natty Bat Vampire Shill, a creature of Darkness only happy when arguing for increasing use of DU, DDT, military force, a defender of the true PNAC faith .

Yes, dear Frog, every major legitimate scientific study has concluded that there is very little danger, if any, from the by-products of DU weapons.  Pardon me for trusting the experts.

As for DDT, there is an emerging major consensus in Africa by African leaders and health and science professionals that DDT is indeed safe and effective, and needs to be reinstated, and indeed is, in an effort to prevent millions of deaths due to malaria.  Writers in the New York Times, and even Desmond Tutu have advocated for reclaiming from environmentalists the ability to use it for household spraying.  Everyone agrees that it was over-used for crop spraying, but the stigma attached to DDT by environmentalists has made it very difficult to even use DDT in a limited, safe and effective way.

And yes, military force is responsible for you, and now even people in Iraq of all places,  being able to type away on a very affordable and high powered computer, and argue with me and others.  The PNAC merely advocates that it is prudent to maintain and improve this force, and plan ahead for emerging threats to these and other freedoms. 

The thing about these views, is that reasonable people can disagree with them, and indeed may and do find flaws in them.  However, I’ve yet to hear even the slightest bit of credible evidence to back up misplaced accusations of murder no less by this silly, irresponsible movement, and indeed practically every scrap of flawed thinking they put forth has been quite easily debunked, that is when people take the time to do it.  (you’ll note the lack of profit motive at this site)

I think this is one point Terry is trying to make.  Let’s argue things that are at least arguable.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 2:51 PM

this is my 1st post here so i’ll keep it short.

it’s been nearly five years since 9/11, and NIST has still not released a report explaining how WTC7 was able to collapse in the manner observed.  in fact, NIST NCSTAR 1-3 states clearly that “no steel was recovered from WTC 7” -

the puzzling thing about this simple statement is that FEMA had a piece of steel from WTC7, it was analyzed by a team of professors at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (Barnett, Biederman, & Sisson), who were unable to explain the severely eroded ‘swiss cheese’ condition of the steel.  even so, their analysis was good enough for FEMA, case closed.

my question is:  what became of the WTC7 steel after it was analyzed, and why would it have not been returned to FEMA, or transferred to NIST?  it seems odd, if not suspicious, that such a critical, rare (apparently one-of-a-kind) piece of evidence has just ‘disappeared’.

i had been corresponding with Professor Barnett @ WPI, but then i asked him what i thought was a simple, straightforward question (above) - and i’ve been waiting nearly two months for his answer.  (before this his usual reply time was ~24hrs)

this isn’t a question of perspective, or nuance. 

the steel either exists, or it doesn’t. 
somebody either has it, or they don’t.

maybe somebody here could provide some advice on how to investigate further - heck, maybe Ms. Allen could look into it.

anyway, i’m interested to hear your thoughts.

oh, and i made a song & video about the subject,
which can be found at: http://www.myspace.com/skeptosis
or on youtube (search for “skeptosis”)

thanks

Posted by skeptosis on Jul 12, 2006 at 3:55 PM

Interesting questions, skeptosis.  I believe NIST is currently working on their WTC7 report, and I’m not sure when the final report will be released.  Likely, the questions you ask will be answered therein.

A lot of strange things happen in natural, and unnatural disasters such as 9/11.  I would submit to you that among the myriad of possibilities,  probably the least likely cause of swiss cheese holes in steel is deliberately pre-planted explosives.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 4:27 PM

Skeptosis,

Your question joins that “pile” with hundreds of others.

I also saw, and heard with some disbelief,  Condi say

I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”  Condoleezza Rice, May 16, 2002”

I remember well the foiled 1994 attempt to crash into the Eiffel Tower.

So yeah, “nobody would have imagined it” .... good
link of yours.

Natalie’s job here is the delaying action, to try to get everyone away from the really hard discussion as to whether the towers 1, 2, and particularly 7, could have fallen the way they did from airplane strike.

Posted by frog on Jul 12, 2006 at 5:24 PM

If any of you have seen the movie at http://www.911revisited.com and continue to contend there was no CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, please state that and your reasoning. 

The firefighters said there was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.  You have every right to disagree with them.  It would be nice if you would say why you think they are conspiracy theorists.

They stand there, and they tell you they know people who were killed by explosions in the basement, people who got broken bones and reconstructive surgery because walls blew up and flew into them.

You have to know what caused those explosions if it was not CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, so you can explain it to the survivors.

The last person pulled out of the rubble alive claims there were explosions going off above him and below him.  Explain to him what it was if indeed it was not a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Then.

Tell them they resemble the people who spread HIV-AIDS.

Please do that in person if you ever get the chance.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 6:31 PM

Tell them they resemble the people who spread HIV-AIDS, just as this clowning, vile article written by Terry Allen Couter Hitchens does.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 6:34 PM

Natalie’s job here is the delaying action, to try to get everyone away from the really hard discussion as to whether the towers 1, 2, and particularly 7, could have fallen the way they did from airplane strike.

.....and jet fuel fire, and resulting content fire, and sagging trusses, (photographic evidence), testimony of “red hot” fires by police helicopters resulting in their warning of imminent collapse, testimony of police helicopters and photographic evidence of the bowing inward of exterior columns at least 8 minutes before collapse.

Miles of testimony by NYFD personnel talking about the WTC7’s imminent collapse, radical leaning of the building long before collapse,  unusual “transfer truss” design, vast damage to the structure, heavy fires burning unchecked for many hours, no reasonable explanation for why in the world an unknown to the general public wtc7 would have had to be imploded as well, in addition to the famous twin towers.

This is the kind of stuff that is routinely left out of the discussion by members of the 9/11 truthies, because to include such would render their theories null and void.

So let’s see…..what Condi said proves controlled demolition how again?, and this is not a distraction from the mechanics of the collapse exactly how?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 6:36 PM

Ignore Natalie Bush until she states that she has watched the 911revisited.com movie.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 6:43 PM

No, Diggins, the firefighters did not say there was a controlled demolition.  They said they heard explosions, which of course could have been due do a number of things, the least likely of which is deliberately pre-set explosives.  What exactly would you expect the impact of 20-30 upper floors ramming into the remaining 80-90 to sound like?  The collapse, and the sounds of steel breaking just before the collapse are what 90 percent of these people heard.  The rest are likely the result of jet fuel penetrating lower floors.

Are there any bona-fide NYFD involved the the “truth” movement?  NYPD?

Are there any bona-fide structural engineers?

Are there any bona-fide fire engineers?

Are there even any bona-fide civil engineers?

Of course, there are plenty of computer programmers, theologians, “research experts”, and history professors.

Strangely, they all to a man or woman hate Bush and hate the Iraq war.

Is this any way to do science?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 6:53 PM

watch the video, Natalie.  Then discuss.

Firemen, FDNY, said CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.  They are on the video.

They are the Firefighters who went in to save the lives of American Citizens.

They are not AIDS-HIV spreading conspiracy theorists.  Bad writing Terry Allen Liddy.

They went through the lobby and went up to prepare evacuation.  They heard several explosions while in the building.  When they came back down the lobby had been destroyed by explosions.

Need a test tube and a calculator to figure that out?

Watch they movie and see the faces of the people who tell you about the explosions.

The head Underwriters Laboratories guy said there were bombs in the building.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 7:21 PM

they heard the explosions before the 10 second collapse.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 7:25 PM

Thankyou Rugbyzhg

The falling times of the buildings is indeed of itself a complete refutation of the thoery that the fires and or planes did it. It isn’t the only proof positive that the official story is false, but it is indeed one of the simplest.

YET, the entire truth movement is still sidelined in the MSM.  The threats against Scholars for 911 Truth and their children of late, gives a picture of the desperation and violence inherant in the government effots to keep the lid on it.
This is rendering to quaintness the once logical notion that one had only to DISPROVE a theory once to eliminate it from contention.

In all the attacks on the truth and truth movement, one thing is continuous.  The Faith based brigade never actually prove their theory, or even assemble any compelling evidence, they merely hack away at the mountain of evidence which has accumalated to prove the official story impossible.

The completely inverse relationship to logic and conclusion, facts and opinions is a frightening harbinger of what may yet be in the future for your benighted land.  I shudder to think.

How fine to see the Vampire Shill of Death and destruction, Natalie has found this thread.  Did you get a call from your controller deary?  The truth is being told about 911 on a thread labelled as such, quickly Natty get moving, have you got your box of tricks?  Your smoke?  Your collection of Mirrors?  Your big sack of mud and slime?

Rabbit has laid the groundwork carefully at the start of this thread, tried to stick to the easy stuff, the most verifiable facts which demolish the lies.  Working feverishly for two days the little rabbit has psoted and tidied up and linked, and thinked.  Knowing the Shills would be along very soon, he has endeavored to anticipate their every move, having been there lots before.

Now anyone can see from the earliest posts that the exact nature and form of the upcoming defnce will take. For anyone wanting to know how the official story is supported, you have read the leading article by Terry Allen, (maybe it is the Coulter idiot), in which case you have read all there is to support the official lies.  Now expect to see those ad-hominem and rhetorical lines recycled ad-infinitum.

Have not yet read the Natty’s ramblings here, I know them well and may ignore her mostly.  Hopefully others will play with her a bit, but be warned she leaves a bad taste in the mind after a while.  By all means try and pin her downm to specifics of consequence, try if you will to get her to deal with significant facts and raise a reasoned response on their basis.  Rabbit predicts none will succeed. 

As always she will fill the maximum space with boring smoke and mirrors to deflect, and though she will berate one for length of post if it contains too much uncomfortable truth, she will ramble on for pages of dissembling rubbish.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 12, 2006 at 8:02 PM

Natalie, it seems you have been rendered to an Anachronism.

Major

Firstly, sorry for being too rude, you know the rabbit is too hoppity sometimes, but I did mention once that I know you are not a ditthead or fool, so at least be assured, though I am only a worthless rodent, I do not for a moment hold you for a Bush Freak or a Cringer. 

But it doesn’t prove that the neocons destroyed the World Trade Center by initiating a clandestine controlled demolition.  And if you hope to show that they demonstrate a greater disregard for human rights and the unbiased rule of law than the liberals or the left, then you’ll have to prove it.  Otherwise we get smeared by idiots like Natalie who believe the neocons are the greatest thing since sliced shit. ]

That is a given!  But I don’t actually consider nor have I implied that the controlled demolition of the buildings stands as evidence of Neocon involvment.  It is consistent with such a contention though there are other far more compelling facts which suggest such a thing, and various of these are referenced above.

Unless you are playing the devils advocate, then it seems you need to do that time honoured thing and read the sources I’ve given, further confirm any facts you may have a problem with, and there won’t be many they are nothing mysterious or made up, all in the public domain.  Rabbit has no need really to talk anyone into anything, the only thing anyone has to do is look at a few facts and have them organised into a simple chain of evidence.

The foolish Terry Allen has said exactly what it is all about, and though she said it it unconscious sefl irony, we can use it. It is the crux of what proving atheory is all about, and this is what the liars and defenders of the lies cannot do.

“Scientific theories, on the other hand, depend on interlocking chains of evidence: The integrity of the whole relies on the soundness of each link. Break any one and the theory founders.”

One thing which nobody wants to debate who has a vested interest in the lies is that the FBI have no real evidence of Bin Laden’s involvment.  In short, he is not even wanted for 911.  That is and always was made up from the minds of Neoconmen. 

So Major, since he was apparently never involved, how do you explain those who began claiming it almost straight away and who have asserted ever since it is a fact?

It doesn’t really matter anyway, because we are not required to answer exactly what happened.  If the official story is disproven by us, then our job is done. The answers were supposed to come from investigations which they did not. So having proven the offiical answers are false, we need only demand a proper investigation.  That is logical and lawful.  What is no longer logical is that anyone would deny a new investigation must be launched.

As you know the chance of such a thing happening in the USA is probably past.  It does not look to anybody out here as if you guys have any chance of either fair elections or any sort of public oversight of government anymore.  An investigation into the crime of the century which enabled this incredible usurpation of power is as likely as Rabbit or Frog being elected for your next POTUS.

Like every other so-called fact touted by the liars and repeated in the press it is all spin! Complete rubbish and just because millions of people are still dumb enough to believe it, even the most ardent of them can fall from one day to the next from a simple look at the facts. They scream about the truthers making up facts, when all we do is look at the facts. When it gets down to actually defining the facts, we find all they have is beliefs.  They will defend an opinion, a theory as a fact, when such can never be.  FACTS are definable, provable by their nature.

The fall rates of the south WTC tower is a FACT, and nobody makes that up. Any opinion based on that fact is either likely or not, there is no way you can logically call it making up facts if one says the fall rate of the building proves the official theory to be false. The opinion is based on the fact, and it is the reasoning that leads to the opinion it is so which you can argue, or not..

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 12, 2006 at 8:23 PM

Bruce Willis of all people is now onboard.  He was a flag humping neocon cheerleader until very recently, actually on record attacking the 911 truth movement.  He was given the information by Richard Linklater, and upon seeing it, he realised.  No convincing necessary.

Michelle Malkin (sweet girl) is all up in arms about it apparently.  Shocked and appalled. 

What an uphill battle you shills have.  Poor things.

One day I expect the government is going to manage, via one of their shills, to actually turn someone who has first known the truth.  They will announce it on TV, and that person will be interviewed, given massive coverage on the MSM, as an example of someone who has been convinced of the official story, after having long been a “conspiracy theorist”.  I hope for you Natty it is thyself who manages to convert that feeble minded soul.  With all my heart I hope that historic first convert makes you a famous shill.  That day will be touted as a victory for the 911 Fairy Tale brigade.  A whole one convert.  What a win.  Historical. 

But like everything else about your fairy tale, only a theory yet.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 12, 2006 at 9:10 PM

This is my first post. I read something I cannot possibly pass up without comment.

QUOTE: MAJOR MAJOR
If part of a structure is torquing off its vertical axis, due to the resistance of the remaining structure below, then the structure will continue to torque off its vertical axis until the resistance is removed.  And if the NYFD or whatever other organization in charge of public safety decides to remove the structural resistance to reduce collateral loss of lives due to catastrophic damage to adjacent structures, then how does that prove anything other than the intent to restrict additional loss of life.  For all we know, many other structures throughout the world are similarly equipped.  Naturally, the owners of the buildings would be disinclined to advertise the alternative.
END QUOTE

Major, you are ABSOLUTELY correct in saying that the structure will continue torquing! Which makes it impossible for the torqing structure to drop straight down, unless the pivot is removed. Which begs the question, why does less than 1-2 seconds into the torqing, the pivot (provided by the remaining building) disappears? Please think through the scenario before shooting yourself like that.

Challenge: Please find me a commerical building, any commercial building in the world pre-wired with explosives…... What is the point of making non-sensical claims? It only hurts your arguments. “For all we know”.... amazing.

Ms Natalie, you at least sound reasonable. I was a hardcore skeptic of the “Inside Job” theory UNTIL it was brought to my attention that the towers took 10secs to collapse. Caught up in the emotion and dispair of watching the tower collapse, I think many of us failed to notice that crucial truth. The collapse happened in 10seconds. Freefall. Once brought to my notice, even before Dr. Wood published proof which is a very good piece of work, (please read it before attempting to disparage it.), my high school physics told me that it can only happen IF ALL SUPPORT was removed from the tower SIMULTANEOUSLY (or close to it). Any partial failure will skew the collapse and cause the torqing that Major Major mentioned. A partial failure of the steel structure will leave some structure standing with large sections sheered off.

The 911 commission will have to prove how less-than-intense-oxygen-starved-smokey fires (film show person WALKING in impact zone before collapse, is that film faked?) burning for less than 1 and 2 hrs respectively can cause ALL support to fail simulataneously, as conjected in the report. To do anything else is folly as it will only fuel speculation. To do less is a crime against the families and friends who have lost loved ones to the despicable act of crime commited by cowardly and evil people.

Peace

EDITED FOR GRAMMAR MISTAKES

Posted by cicobuff on Jul 12, 2006 at 9:23 PM

thanks to in these times for publishing the carrot that drew the rabbit out. i have learned a lot. i was already convinced by michael ruppert’s “crossing the rubicon”. i can only imagine that itt meant to open the door with terry’s wincingly servile blurb. the footnotes obliterate the article.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 12, 2006 at 9:52 PM

what organization does terry represent?

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:00 PM

I looked at Nat’s new toy and having read it am impressed with the amount of padding being applied to try and ignore a couple of basic facts while pretending to make a scientific case for an as yet unproven theory.

A few sentences are of utmost importance but I don’t know how cut and paste from PDF things.  They point out clearly eneough that each successive floor would have affected the actual velocity, such that a series of acceleration and decelerations would have occurred within the parameters of maximum being gravity. 

Then I kept waiting and waiting for a simple calulation which actually put the whole calculation on show from start to finish, but nothing.  That point in itself implies a much longer collapse time than what was seen but despite referring to the WTC as if it was a single building throughout, and considering the difference in height of WTC-7, hmm!

Lots of lovely complicated equations where various imaginary concepts are given a letter to identify them within the formulas, but none of the answers are anything which has a numerical and or real life counterpart.

Frankly it is the usual sort of dissembly and waffling we have come to expect. I predict that unlike the scholarly and easy to understand scientific analysis of Professor Steve Jones, this report will soon be getting actual refutation of its main contentions.  Not attacks on the persons or honesty or sanity of the writers, or threats against their children, like we have come to expect, but a scholarly refutation. 

I for one am quite unimpressed.  It still comes down to a lot of theorising, without any single reason to expect this could ever have been concieved of even.  Many of our contentions, NO HISTORICAL evidence such a theory possible, scepticism of the official account by experts and engineers is admitted.  So much is between the lines I was almost expecting them to apply one or other of their pretty looking equations to the actual parameters of even one of the WTC buildings.  In the end the bow was drawn but from exactly what it was left uncertain.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:07 PM

Terry is probably Anne Coulter say some.

What organisation does she seem to represent?  It seems she might be one or other of the RW nutjob talking heads.  Who knows who or what they truly serve, probably just themselves.  Their own warped sense of what is right and wrong.

Natalie on the other hand is probably a Rendon Shill.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:12 PM

“Firemen, NYFD, said CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.  They are on the video.”

Diggins, I watched the video.  Not that I haven’t seen all this footage someplace else before, just not put together in this particular DVD (for sale, btw!)  Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t catch where the firemen say that “the building was taken down by controlled demolition.”  Perhaps you can give me the exact time on the counter where that statement commences.  Now I know that they say a lot about explosives, and even make comparisons to building demolitions, but that is not the same thing as saying “the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition”, as you stated in your previous post:

“The firefighters said there was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.  You have every right to disagree with them.  It would be nice if you would say why you think they are conspiracy theorists.”

To jump from these descriptive statements to believing that they literally believe as you do, is no different than subscribing to this theory,  which, quite frankly makes about as much sense as imagining that a few puffs of dust and debris in response to the collapse are actually caused by explosives, and that these teeny tiny little puffs are evidence of the amount of explosives that would be necessary to “remove all the resistance below”.

“The head Underwriters Laboratories guy said there were bombs in the building.”

What is his name and what is his exact position?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:28 PM

The reason there is so much disappointment with Bush is because it is his Administration, his presidency, his government that says there were no explosive devices causing the unique signatures of the event.

These devices take a longer time to be put in place than is possible for their implementation to be a reaction to the hijackings.

It is not credibly feasible.  No feasible credibility.

I went to work on 911.  It wasn’t my first day at work.

One guy I know of, it was his first day on the job, and he died on 911.

I told my co-worker I thought Bush had done it.

I was concerned with his prior provocation over China.

My co-worker said, “Why would he attack his own country?”

Can anyone at this point imagine why he might have done that?

Who is Bush, and what role does he play? 

Look at a list of the tenants at WTC 7.  Who was being investigated by the SEC?  Who went along with the big lie?

We could only look at buildings blown up, and believe our questions would be met with Wellstonian accidents.

It took a while to catch up to the immediacy the DU effect has on the world.

I believe there are about 16 countries with DU weapons.

4 million pounds of DU were aerosolized in Iraq in 2003.

DU is nuclear waste the nuclear energy industry gives to the munition manufacturers in MN, free (Freedom isn’t free, but DU is.)

The deal with Iran, was that if it made its own nuclear energy fuel, it could also make DU.

Russia offered to supply its fuel.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 10:59 PM

cicobuff,

The buildings very likely took longer than 10 seconds to fall.  Anybody that tells you that they know exactly how long it took is lying to you.

There is ample evidence, however, that the buildings fell in closer to 13 seconds, and there is irrefutable evidence that the buildings fell substancially slower than “freefall”.  (9.2 seconds)  Numerous photos show huge chunks of debris many, many floors ahead of the main collapse.

The folks at 9/11review even say as long as 16 seconds.

The 9/11 truthies are very fond of videos.  Examine the video at this link (about two thirds down the page), as well as the other analysis there.  (you might have to download the clip to confirm for yourself that the building took at least about 13 seconds to fall.)  (you won’t see this video at the truth sites)

Do you know how far an object would fall in freefall given even 12 seconds?  I believe about 1.7 times the full height of one of the towers.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 11:03 PM

Wow!  You watched that video.

Did you get HIV-AIDS?

That must have been a real leap of FAITH for you.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 11:13 PM

How much did the DVD cost you?

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 11:14 PM

<<“The head Underwriters Laboratories guy said there were bombs in the building.”

What is his name and what is his exact position? >>

You already fired him.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 12, 2006 at 11:20 PM

for the record, it’s FDNY, not NYFD.

2nd, all the Firefighters who mentioned WTC7’s ‘imminent collapse’ were merely relating what they were told by other (unidentified) persons on the scene.  all the other details, they know precisely who they were with (even guys from other firehouses, even cops they’d never met before that morning) - but you can search through the hundreds of oral histories from the FDNY (i have), and every single one of them who mentions WTC7 just says ‘somebody’ told them the building was going to collapse - not Lieutenant so-and-so, not Battalion Chief whats-his-name, just ‘somebody’.

now, in the midst of the chaos on that particular Tuesday morning, i doubt there was much badge-checking or ‘vetting’ going on downtown.

i’ll bet anyone w/ an FDNY uniform could’ve thrown it on, walked into that crowd of traumatized Firefighters, and said ‘clear out, that building’s going to come down’ and have been taken at his word.  and he’d probably have been remembered as ‘somebody’, too…

3rd, a quick thought about Larry Silverstein’s infamous ‘pull it’ quote -

the anti-truthers are insistent that what he meant by that was ‘pull [the contingent of firefighters still in WTC7]’, because he was so concerned about the safety and well-being of the Firefighters on the scene -

two problems w/ that: 

FEMA says there weren’t any manual firefighting operations going on inside the building (due to the universally acknowledged lack of water @ the location),

and it strains credulity to imagine that Silverstein, having just seen both WTC towers crumble to the earth with hundreds of New York’s Bravest still inside, would’ve referred to the alleged group of Firefighters supposedly fighting the fires in WTC7 as ‘it’, rather than ‘them’.

Posted by skeptosis on Jul 12, 2006 at 11:25 PM

Rabbit said:

“Lots of lovely complicated equations where various imaginary concepts are given a letter to identify them within the formulas, but none of the answers are anything which has a numerical and or real life counterpart.”

In other words, you don’t have the foggiest idea what any of those equations mean, or how to follow the logical sequence laid out by a structural engineer.

Don’t feel bad, neither do I.  But more significant is that neither does Steven Jones, or James Fetzer, or David Griffin, or Charlie Sheen, or even Bruce Willis. 

That is, of course, why I posted the link to the paper.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 11:29 PM

“The head Underwriters Laboratories guy said there were bombs in the building.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 12, 2006 at 11:41 PM

I am sure you have never heard of him.  Besides, you have already seen all that 911 footage.

Why would you be interested in an already fired top UL scientist?  Why would you have to ask me if you have already seen all, or even just about any, of the 911 footage available?

Perhaps you don’t recall that happening, or you don’t think you recall it happening…

Posted by Diggins on Jul 13, 2006 at 12:05 AM

Could you just kindly answer my question, Diggins?

What’s so hard about that?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 13, 2006 at 12:09 AM

http://www.nomoregames.net/printer_friendly.php?page=911&subpage1=risk_of_winning

Posted by Diggins on Jul 13, 2006 at 12:10 AM

Did Silverstein’s statement actually state there were firemen IN the building?  Could he not have been referring to pulling people back from the area below and around WTC7, because firemen knew that the building was likely to collapse?

Has anyone in the “truth” movement bothered to attempt to contact Silverstein, and ask him what he meant, since it is somewhat ambiguous?

Does ambiguity seem like a good thing to base a theory on?

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 13, 2006 at 12:11 AM

Rabbit said:

“Terry is probably Anne Coulter say some.
What organisation does she seem to represent?  It seems she might be one or other of the RW nutjob talking heads.  Who knows who or what they truly serve, probably just themselves.  Their own warped sense of what is right and wrong.”

A right winger writing @ “In These Times”?  Not likely, Rabbit.  But I guess it’s possible.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 13, 2006 at 12:14 AM

Oh, I see Diggins.  You’re trying to protect his identity so he won’t get murdered.  You’re OK!!

I think you’re talking about Kevin Ryan, am I right?  He had nothing to do with the relevant department at UL…..he was a manager of some water quality division.  He wrote an unauthorized, politically tinged completely uninformed and ridiculous letter to Frank Gayle at NIST on UL stationery, so of course he was fired.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 13, 2006 at 12:23 AM

not after your disregard for those who were murdered

I do not want to talk to you tonight.

You said you watched the movie, and you are still just as callous.

go do a google

btw i perused the paper natalie linked

these con artists say that the top section of the building that was tipping
and just stopped pivoting,
fell straight down and crushed all the floors beneath it.

THEN

and get this…

when that section hit the ground, that was the upward crushing part, and the top section of the building was crushed by landing on the debris of the floors it had crushed.

it’s clinically hilarilous, what kind of material can crush a larger portion of the same material (400% as much), and then be crushed by impacting on the debris of the crushed material?

they have a big schematic for it covering a whole page of the pdf

Posted by Diggins on Jul 13, 2006 at 12:27 AM

Natty the Batty

The buildings very likely took longer than 10 seconds to fall.  Anybody that tells you that they know exactly how long it took is lying to you.

Natty lies like a rug.  The NIST report is who said the WTC south fell in 10.5 seconds.  AND she has been shown this before.  More to the point though the last place I read mention of the fact was on the link she gave at the start.  Is this a prevaricator or what?  People trust the rabbit, this isn’t a fluffy little moron, a normal dittohead instead it is a vile and poisonous Vampire of truth.  She sucks the life out of the truth if she can. Or else she covers it with her own special brand of endless slime and shrill demands for weird and wonderful minutae as if one’s failure to seek it somehow dismantles the whole concept that the offical report could be lacking in anything….....except at least, the faith of 42% of even dumbass americans.

Anne Coulter writing under a pseudonym a typical neocon/neoliberal hit piece against the 911 truth, on a feeble left wing gatekeeper presstitute like ITT?  Why not Natty dear?

Don’t mention Depleted Uranium again in her presence, please Diggins.  She is excited enough already.  She loves it, wears clothes made out of it and likes to water it onto her vegetables too I hear.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 13, 2006 at 12:45 AM

Natty

<i>In other words, you don

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 13, 2006 at 1:06 AM

Major, you are ABSOLUTELY correct in saying that the structure will continue torquing! Which makes it impossible for the torqing structure to drop straight down, unless the pivot is removed.

Not necessarilly.  If we assume that no demolition occurred, then at vertical or near vertical orientation, the structure would oscillate about its axis as it encounters intermittant resistance from below.  Eventually, the mass of the structure, as a function of its skew from the vertical, would be greater then the mass of resistance it encounters, and it would then overcome the self-correcting inertial oscillations.  But by then the structure would have been substantially collapsed.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 13, 2006 at 9:04 AM

so much blather about torque and shit. does it really matter? no one will ever be tried for this. there is no crime in this terror regime, no one accountable, murder is acceptable. why would we think our government would not murder us? are we special in history? has america stopped short of mass murder before? forget 911. many times that number have been murdered by our state terrorism. an equivalent number are being slaughtered every three days in iraq. stop quibling over eroneous detail. you are playing the game of divide and conquer. it will never satisfy if you desire a better world. we must begin where we are: we have created a monster, again. i’m referring to us: u.s. we need to stop the beast. quit paying illegal taxes. do not be a partisan dupe. think beyond the brain-numbing dichotomy the regime pumps us with. otherwise we are well and truly fucked.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM

Re: Kevin Ryan,

http://www.gnn.tv/B16493

Posted by reprehensor on Jul 13, 2006 at 11:16 AM

<< Eventually, the mass of the structure, as a function of its skew from the vertical, would be greater then the mass of resistance it encounters, >>

If this actually happened, why would the top portion have the capacity to crush the lower portion 400% larger, which was homogenous in material make-up with the upper portion.

straw

grasp

stop

Posted by Diggins on Jul 13, 2006 at 11:40 AM

thanks to kevin ryan. it’s clear that the murderers have ranks of liars and that the fulcrum of the assault on humanity they deem the war on terror is 9-11. it is exceedingly clear we do not have representative government.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 13, 2006 at 1:15 PM

dougshaeffer,

As Kevin Ryan mentioned in the interview, 911 comes up ALL the time as a justification for A to B to X , Y, Z .

Elsewhere it is “TERRORISM” . One good bit of news is that the implementation of an ID card system by BLAIR is being pushed back by technical problems. Blairwatch—-Dubya’s Man in London for details.

And for a laugh from the House of Commons before frog goes to t’pub.

Gorgeous George may be a hate figure but he is undoubtedly the best speaker in the House that he so rarely chooses to attend. By the time he was called, the US had already taken a beating. America the Beautiful had become America the Flawed. But, with Gorgeous, it was traduced to America the Ugly. She was the Wicked Witch of the West and, just to make sure we got the point, he dressed her in an orange jumpsuit and manacles. He said you could not separate US justice from Guantanamo, cages in the tropics, and people being forcibly drugged.

Can’t you? But Mr Galloway did not tarry over details. ““We all want a special relationship with the United States,’’” he teased, as MPs listened raptly despite themselves. ”“All we want is a special relationship that does’nt resemble that between Ms Lewinsky and a former US President: unequal, disreputable, with the junior partner always on their knees.”“

Posted by frog on Jul 13, 2006 at 1:34 PM

btw i perused the paper natalie linked

Diggins, are you a structural engineer?  If not, you don’t have the slightest idea how to criticize this paper.  But neither do I and neither does ANYONE in the “truth” movement.

If you were falsely accused of murder, and DNA evidence could easily exonerate you, would you expect the tests to be conducted by neutral experts in DNA testing and interpretation, and for the results to be presented in court by these same individuals?

Or, would you be satisfied with tests and analysis conducted by Kevin Ryan in his water testing laboratory, and with a presentation in court by a physics professor, both of whom held strong personal biases that caused them to be sympathetic to the murder victim?

Here’s a few questions for the folks at scholars for 9/11 truth.  (Kevin Ryan has joined, it would seem….unemployment must have run out…..time to raise the profile and write a book)

Have you tried to reach out to the structural, civil, or fire engineering communities, to determine whether or not some of them might agree with you and might even be willing to join your group?

If so, what was the response?  Have any of them agreed to join your group?

If you haven’t attempted to reach out, why not?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 13, 2006 at 3:15 PM

I understand the allure of this free-fall time aspect.  It’s pretty easy for average people to understand, after all almost everyone has dropped something off a high place.

The formula for free-fall is relatively simple, yet it still presents a whiff of high-minded physics. 

And it kinda makes sense to people that the WTC towers shouldn’t have fallen as close to free-fall as they did, especially when they aren’t aware of the relatively hollow construction of the WTC towers…..tubes, really.

However, people who are professionally knowledgeable in such areas know better.  They understand that once that huge mass of upper stories broke through one floor, the resistance offered by the remaining structure was insignificant next to the force exerted by the increasing gravity of the pancaking mass.

From Bazant 2006:

The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also succeed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top.

So, whether the collapse time was 10 seconds or 16 seconds, a collapse time very close to freefall is completely expected, and explainable by people who are actually qualified to do so.

I don’t see any reference to free-fall time in the NIST final report, Rabbit, but I think they might have referred to a 10 or 10.5 second approximation in previous drafts.  I don’t think this number was the result of any intensive calculations, I think it was simply a ball-park descriptive number used for purposes of illustration. 

But I thought the NIST report was a total cover-up.  Why are you willing to use this one aspect, if it does indeed exist?

I believe the video I linked to earlier is about the strongest evidence available, and it is obvious from this that the time was in the neighborhood of 13 seconds.  This is the only video I’ve seen that is taken in such a way as to not have the lower portion of the building shrouded in dust clouds.  I doubt whether NIST saw this video, because if they did, and if they did put out an estimate, it surely would have been closer to 13 seconds.

Not that it really matters all that much, anyway.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 13, 2006 at 3:44 PM

NATTY the Vampire Bat SHILL ,

IF those towers were ‘hollow’, your frog is chinese.

That might lead people to think, they were a sort of “card castle”.  We all built them as kids, and with one flick of a finger,at the base,  they collapsed !

Those structures were designed by the best of American engineers, to withstand plane-strikes and the subsequent fuel-fires.

No plane without fuel, dear Shill.

I partly earn my living by cutting down trees.

Unlike a tree correctly analysed, the South Tower started faling the “wrong”  way. 

Mechanically all wrong.

Good question of yours, Natters the Vampire Shill——

Have you tried to reach out to the structural, civil, or fire engineering communities, to determine whether or not some of them might agree with you and might even be willing to join your group?

AS IS OFTEN THE CASE,  turn your   question on its HEAD.

Has anyone here noticed that a really remarkable number , well over ten thousand, out of millions worldwide,  of Structural Engineers ;  from New Zealand to Tashkent have jumped aboard the NIST/BUSH theory of 911 ?

”“"Hmmm Hmmm”    ?”“

Posted by frog on Jul 13, 2006 at 5:53 PM

The vampire makes a lot of self ironic statements if one pays attention.

Pointing out as she does that those who don’t accept the official faith based fairy story, all theory = all faith have something in common, as if that thing somehow makes everyone who shares that view suspect.  Indeed the cruel logic is obvious for anyone to see.

The thing we all have in common which makes us certain liars and prevaricators while she defends the faith? 

We hate George Bush and are against the Iraq war.

Well…..Golly gee..

How could that be, what strange order of connection could this be?

Could it be that this is entirely consistent with holding Bush responsible for 911, and not some imaginary Terra-ist in the mountains plot?  thus knowing that even the most tenuous justification for ATTACKING not only Iraq but Afghanistan is gone?  Would this not tend to fuel a disliking of the Bushling along with his wars all by itself? 

Personally I took no notice of him before 911, and initially like the rest of the world felt sympathy and expressed the same.  At least until the end of september 2001, the USA could have been unanimously cuddled and cared for by the whole world, I’d say with not a single national exception.  Certainly all the countries the USA is tormenting since did express their condolences and outrage at whoever did it very clearly at the time, and the taliban merely asked for some proof evidence Bin Laden did it, yet they universally condemned the perpetrators..

The irony is that those who are no longer expressing this to the USA, which is nearly everyone, still feel outrage and anger towards the perpetrators.  The thing is there isn’t much point in expressing sympathy to those who it has become increaingly clear did it.

Just another possibility for you to consider there while hanging in the dark, Bat.  Of course the most likely explanation is that we hate american freedom and george bush especially because he stands for all those things, so we just make it all up, to help the terrorists.  That’s it isn’t it Natty?

The lack of a substantial group of independent supporters of the official theory of collapse, let alone the whole event of 911, is of course legend.  The same cannot be said of the 911 truth movement.  This group is accusing nothing, just demanding an investigation, based on the complete devolution of the official story, remember.  How unreasonable a request is that?  How unreasonable to refuse such a request is the real question.

Scholars for 911 Truth has over 300 members of whom 200 are qualified including engineers, physicists, aeronautical engineers and many other fields. 

All attempts to belittle and and insult people who have come to realise the truth are like so many pigs squealing, all noise but nothing behind it except blind terror.  Anybody who doubts the strength of the factual evidence and the certainty they completely eradicate all claims of legitimacy from the government’s fable, had better familiarise themselves with the range of experience and qualifications of this group.

Then ask yourselves why there is no such opposition from other independant experts.

By all means read anything the goons pump out or pay to pump out, but never lose sight of the fact that for all the scrabbling after trying to build a credible scenario even for the building’s collapse, they have not ever even made ANY inroads against denying the actual scenario and that is that nothing so unusual happened in the collapse of those buildings in that they all were perfectly well excecuted controlled demolitions.  And do read what Professor Jones writes, it is much shorter and easy to understand than the deliberately vague official crap trap too.

Trying to build a case against all odds for an unlikely fable, is not the same as directly challenging the actual evidence of demolitions.  This is still the most conclusive if one ignored half of it.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 13, 2006 at 8:39 PM

“This group is accusing nothing”

Oh, no.  Only that somebody planned and executed the deliberate destruction of the World Trade Center Towers One and Two, WTC7, and the destruction of at least a portion of the Pentagon, all of which could very well have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Other than that, absolutely nothing!

Professor Jones writes, it is much shorter and easy to understand

Exactly my point, Mr. Rabbit.  Jones is so far out of his depth that it’s actually kind of sad.

The pertinent fields here, Rabbit, are structural engineering and fire protectiion.  Are there any members of “scholars” for truth that have bona-fide, verifiable credentials in these fields?

Or, as I suspect, are they simply a bunch of politically and profit motivated hacks?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 13, 2006 at 10:43 PM

That Natalie is the implication of the facts but you are completely fabricating to say the Scholars for 911 truth are accusing anything.  They have one ask, that a real investigation be carried out.

That is a complete lie and I challenge you to produce a single accusation from their site.

I’m really getting sick of your emotional rhetoric sliming everything and everybody when the debate can be kept to specific facts and their interpetations. You are a one trick pony in this regard, and the rabbit is sick of riding you, pony. You lie like a bat shaped rug as always.  The identiites of anybody when it comes to a simple truth or a verifiable fact is not an issue, much as you pretend the person is the issue. 

Tell us Natalie, does accusing Osama Bin Laden of 911 , without any evidence not count as an unjust accusation?  As for who is accusing anyone, though the above mentioned scholars are not, I am accusing the present administration of complicity, based on evidence of this.  But the only demand which anybody is making is for an independent investigation. 

Now why would anyone not agree to this?  Especially as Terry Allen admits in one of the foot shooing points she herself made, that 42% of Americans actually think the administration is covering up its complicity.

Far more than that also agree with the need for a proper investigation which actually includes all the facts; but not those who have something to hide.  Which are you dear fanged one? 

Terry Allen said it, an Unbroken chain of interlocking evidence is needed, we have one you don’t.
Jones’ report is easy to understand because he tries to make it so, and because the facts are actually very simple and easy to relate to, if one tries.  It is different when trying to hide the truth and make things seem more complex than they are. 

I’ve pointed out that your own recently referenced, theoretical treatise, actually doesn’t in any way disparage the implosion contention and it lists several pertinent facts which followed to their logical conclusion would also disprove the official lies.  Which is why they don’t do any such thing.

Only morons are impressed by lots of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo, only a moron is impressed by something which is obviously avoiding a direct treatment of something by waffling and infinite dissection.

Newtons laws are simple and hidden away in all those silly fake equations of your recent great hope and they can simply be used to give a time for an object dropped from the height the buildings began to collapse.  As the recent un-peer reviewed report you produced says, the buildings would actually have collapsed in a series of decelerations and accelerations, within the maximum of gravity.  This they then avoid to apply directly to the fall time of 10.5 seconds which they yet mentioned.  Had they done so the whole impossibility of the official fairy tale would fall down quicker than the buildings did.  It is a study in dissembly, and as it is only a few days old, you can just drop it as any reliable use unless you can explain how it relates to anything.

The report gives itself away by a few ad-hominem remarks about conspiracy theories but by avoiding specifics itself never actually challenges any.  In short it reeks.  This is said after reading it unlike Natty who never read anything or saw any videos, she lies about these things mostly.  She cannot afford to actually read what she tries to debunk, which shows in her lack of knowledge of what is said in even her own sources.

Lets face it you posted the source and then promptly tried to claim the fall time of the buildings isn’t specifically known, after your own source quoted it. That is known in the trade as lying.

As for who is in the scholars group, how about you read the list, or shall I post it directly?  Of course if you come up with one of your specific types of demands, like is there a six fingered fireman, with experience in identifying fuel fires, and who is born on a leap year, under a starry sky;  who knows, there may not be. I’m sorry Natalie but the rabbit is unfamiliar with the logic which says that the only person who is cappable of recognising or commenting on the science of structural engineering, physics in general, demolitions or indeed the many other angles from which a mountain of evidence awaits official exammination or explanation.  All these and many fields of interest are represented and the chorus of support extends as you well know far beyond this group which is a relative newcomer to the 911 truth movement. 

Mostly your sly questions answer themselves, though not in the way you hope, they make you look desperate and dishonest, as the usual unanimous reaction to you reveals.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 13, 2006 at 10:59 PM

Funny….. Again the bat burns Its silly wings.

The source you just gave is actually not doing more than comparing the ideas of fire or plane crashes bringing down the WTCs and is so thinly argued it, merely accepts the official faith based story without question and then concentrates on the toxic materials and resultant gases and health risks to the firemen. In fact a number of the facts it refers to are among the most damaging of the whole case, it completely lays to waste the official claims of how the buildings were structured. Ignores the moot point about planes due to WTC 7.  It also makes the false assumption the fires were much more than they were and that an hour of fire in such a building is anything but brief even transient.  Another example by the way of the incompetance and inhumanity of the administration is the health effects which have gone ignored among firemen, and it is this the article is really about.

In short Natalie, it is irrelevant unless you wish to confirm via the authors word alone, that the structure included a core and columns as well as floor support and fireproofing materials the offical reports pretend don’t exist.  Which is OK with me, but personally if I needed to confirm those details I would have chosen a more easily verifiable and qualified source. 

MORON!

What is that sound down in the bottom of the barrel?  Oh yes, I see, its a nasty little bat scraping up some stains to use for something.

Natty if Jones is so wrong, perhaps you would care to challenge one of his actual postures?  You know one of those wild and weird things you say he claims, which one would you like to challenge first Natty?  I’m sure you know them all?  Surely someone in the official faith based camp has a scholarly refutation you can pick from, haven’t they Natty? 

Especially if actually making claims for either side of the argument is good for one’s career or reputation as you say.  One would think any regurgitation of the official blather would benefit one’s career in the present climate of fascist fear mongering.  That it would also earn a million dollar prize on offer for anyone who can prove the official theory possible, does make one wonder where is all the many voices one would expect?  On the other hand the outright hostility and destruction of careers which have met anyone who dared to speak out, and now physical threats against their families hardly amounts to political or career grabs.  You sully only yourself with your slime and your ooze you mad and savage Bat.

A refutation please if there is one, or I shall have to assume that apart from threatening the man and his children as some are doing and calling him a drug addict as you usually fall back on, and questioning his motives, as if truth isn’t enough for any man, that you have NIL.

Come on hysterical and underpaid shill, since you are so contemptuous of Professor Steven Jones you must have a very good reason, lets see where he has shown himself to be out of his depth?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 13, 2006 at 11:28 PM

Honestly, Rabbit, you remind me of that tobacco executive character that Martin Short portrayed on Saturday Night Live.

I can only assume that what you’re trying to pass off here is that the “scholars” haven’t been stupid enough to name a specific person.  No, that would limit their options, now wouldn’t it?  Not to mention possibly opening themselves up for legal action.  (Actually, I bet they have…we’ll have to do a little searching later)

There’s no question however, that all these “scholars” have repeatedly stated their belief, as you have, that the towers were deliberately imploded, or that certain people were complicit in preventing the planes from reaching their targets, or the planes were switched and the passengers were killed or taken hostage, and a million other let’s just say “creative” notions.

I’m sorry, but you can’t put forth these theories without at the same time making the accusation that someone or some group carried them out, regardless of whether you name names.  Or was it unknown forces from beyond?  No, that’s Art Bell territory.

Now you don’t really think I would ignore my own advice and attempt to debunk what I don’t understand, do you?  I’m not a physicist, or an engineer, and neither are you.  I have, however,  pointed out on other threads, examples of Jones taking people out of context in his paper, and the fact that he can’t get it published in a legitimate scientific or engineering journal, or that he uses dishonest sources such as Chris Bollyn, or that he cites a holocaust denial/revisionist publication, or that he also cites a fan of LSD.  In his paper he mostly sticks to “science”, but in his lectures he goes off with the same old political war for oil and bush lied rhetoric. 

All this doesn’t prove that his science is bad, but it surely is an indication that his judgement and honesty is seriously in question.

Let’s put it this way.  If a jury was made aware of all this, I doubt they would give his opinions on structural collapse much weight, so to speak.

However, the people who know Jones best, and coincidentally also have better credentials than Jones for evaluating the WTC collapse, don’t disagree with me, although they don’t disagree with me in a much more diplomatic way.

Also:

“I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don’t think there is accuracy and validity to these claims” “The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members. Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.” - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

“The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.” - The College of Engineering and Technology department (BYU)

Posted by Natalie on Jul 14, 2006 at 2:07 AM

Did I hear something flap past?  Probably just a hysterical Bat with no answers, again.

Put up your actual points of Jones’ which don’t work. 

Or here, Bat, deal with the list of objections of the whole group.

By the way Bazant is being demolished quite effectively here.

You can never do more than come up with a weird theory to account for how the buildings might have collapsed if the laws of gravity and conservation of energy were suspended.  What you cannot do is answer with anything else but supposition and prevarication the following.

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged “hijackers” have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible? 

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like “puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil.” Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to “reappear” in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign “terrorists” who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, “Do the orders still stand?” The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called “MASCAL” simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that “no one ever imagined” a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 14, 2006 at 2:22 AM

You can never even admit the smallest of your deceits Natalie and this poisons the whole such that you quickly accumalate a negative credibility overall. 

For the last time, Scholars for 911 truth does not accuse anyone of anything, except of covering up the truth.

They have one request, a single goal and if you bothered to read anything instead of running off at the beak like a sick chicken you would know that is that a full and independent investigation be a carried out into the events of 911.

It is your your innuendo and sleezy accusations which is the real problem here missy. 

I can only say how perfectly as always you befoul the official story even more by the methods and manner of your ndefnece of it.

Anyone can read my predictions on this at the start of the thread, and you are rolling in the muck as gratuitously as ever I could have wished.

Truly people, though it might seem that way sometimes, Natalie really isn’t an invention of ours, a hoax trying to make the box cutting arab fairy story look bad, she really is trying her best and is giving the official story as good a telling as it gets.

Beleive it or not, she is actually about as scientific and as realistic and as believable as it gets.

Natalie the Vampire is like a veritable monument to the paucity and hollow irony of the official fairy story.  A bat shaped one with forked tongue.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 14, 2006 at 2:38 AM

<i>Those structures were designed by the best of American engineers, to withstand plane-strikes and the subsequent fuel-fires.

No plane without fuel, dear Shill.

I partly earn my living by cutting down trees.

Unlike a tree correctly analysed, the South Tower started faling the

Posted by Natalie on Jul 14, 2006 at 2:42 AM

“If this actually happened, why would the top portion have the capacity to crush the lower portion 400% larger, which was homogenous in material make-up with the upper portion.”

The load-bearing capacity of the support columns were no longer rigidly reinforced, because the kinetic energy of an airliner travelling at close to maximum speed (m*v squared) is enormous enough to plow through less than 70 exterior columns (just through the collision side of the structure, not the entire 280 columns) to compromise the integrity of the12 core support columns which faced the collision side of the structure.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 14, 2006 at 6:42 AM

“Tell us Natalie, does accusing Osama Bin Laden of 911 , without any evidence not count as an unjust accusation?”

In most courtrooms, a video tape confession carries quite a bit of weight.

But even putting aside the fact that he admitted it, and continues to admit it, neither you nor I have any way to know what information the government really has, regardless of the content of public statements.  We have no way to know how much additional evidence and information has been gained through detainee interrogations, or torture if you prefer.

You don’t go around advertising the content of your hand,  whether you’re playing poker or building a case against a madman.

——————————-vv—————————-  (content below this line added 8/5/06)

Before you incorporate the arguments put forth by the 9/11 “truth” movement into your daily interactions with friends and family, you may want to fact check them first, and consider them in the context of common sense.  You will be spared possibly permanent embarrassment if you simply run your revelation du jour through the following before opening your mouth at that party, or sending that email to that friend who still assumes you are sane.—- Natalie, the Fruit Bat.  mmmmm…....fruit

9/11 myths
Debunking 911
Peer reviewed papers debunking the “truth” movement.
(using Steven E. Jones’ standard for peer review)  ;-)

16% of people believe in UFOs.  6% believe in bombs and missiles.

(most of this 6% don’t have more than a high school education and/or live in trailer parks)  (not that there’s anything wrong with that—I don’t, and I used to!)

Not a single institute of Structural, Civil, Fire and Safety or Demolition Engineers on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Architects on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Engineers in any field on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

Which begs the question— Why do you?  Oh yeah…...faith.

——————————-  content below this line added 8/10/06 —————————————

We all know that the select group of incredibly intelligent and talented people who are capable of designing and building huge structures such as the World Trade Center Twin Towers universally agree that a combination of airplane impact damage, heat from fire and gravity caused their collapse.

However, it should also be noted that another group of highly accomplished people, comprised of those that are capable of safely demolishing such structures, concurs.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 14, 2006 at 10:56 AM

And that madman, Natalie, is George Bush and his merry band of neocon pranksters, who lied about the reasons for invading Iraq and now lie about the reasons for occupying the country, killing and torturing the people who resist the occupation and enslaving the survivors under barely veiled threats of instigating a civil war.  Whether they’re directly responsible for destroying the World Trade Center is still a debatable topic and that’s the purpose of this thread.  I happen to believe that their incompetence and deliberate refusal to prevent the catastophe is reason enough to impeach and convict them for treason, and that arguing about an as yet unprovable conspiracy is counterproductive.

But then, I’m not infallible and I could be wrong.  Many of us believed that impeaching Clinton for a blowjob would have been counterproductive.  It’s impossible to underestimate the desperation of fascist politicians who are determined to terrorize an electorate into voting for them.

By the way, Tina appears to be reluctant to “shoulder” her patriotic responsibilities.  Perhaps you might be willing to assume them, in her stead.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 14, 2006 at 11:37 AM

Dear Mr. Rabbitt,

Wake up and smell the Roses.  Just like Grace Slick’s rabbitt, you need to get off that wacky weed and come up from your underground home and learn the real facts of life.  I guess if we continue using the reasoning that you put forth, we will also blame things like the Attack on Pearl Harbor, murder of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, and the sinking of the Lusitania can all be blamed on the United States government because it just wanted to start a war that could lead to thousands of deaths.  Right!! 

Why can’t all of you people wake up and realize what is a stake.  If we can’t stop the Muslim terrorists and their ideas, then you and I will have no chance or choice of a normal life.  These people have only one idea in mind - the complete devastation of anyone or county that is not of the Muslim belief.

It will be people like you and luminous beauty who could eventually help cause the total destruction of the U.S.  We have to face up to our responsibilities and protect what most of Americans hold dear to our hearts. 

I would use the old phrase—America: Love It of Leave It.  but with more people like you keep increasing in their beliefs, then we won’t have to worry, because there won’t be an America.

This problem with the radical Muslims has been going on since President Carter, but there have been only two Presidents who have tried to do anything about it.  If Carter or other previous Presidents, excluding the Bushs, had had some balls, then maybe we wouldn’t be in the situation we all now.

I guess I will say after all, if you don’t like what we are doing now, move to Germany, France, or maybe Iraq, iran, and one of the other Muslim countries.

God bless America and the President

Posted by True Patriot on Jul 14, 2006 at 12:42 PM

Whether the left wants to admit it or not, Lyndon LaRouche’s organization concocted the intellectual framework for the 9/11 truth movement just days after attack. His buddy Mike Ruppert channeled this neofascist conspiracy theory into the progressive community without telling you all where he was getting this information. The seeds of their initial disinformation became the foundation of the 9/11 truth movement. Most of what they say is true and can be independently verified, but their grandest claims are lies. That’s how the process works: three truths followed by a lie. Unless you fact check every single one of their claims, you will have inadvertantly swallowed some serious lies. It is impossible not to. In this way, the left has been duped by the ultra-right. They want you to distrust all sources of information except that which comes from their fringe. LaRouche doesn’t need you to join his movement—he just wants to sow extreme distrust and paranoia which give him more room to operate (not that we don’t have endless reasons to distrust this government already). Read back issues of LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review and you will see that he was the first to float the “inside job” by Cheney thesis and Ruppert dutifully picked it up and gave it to progressives. If you want to learn how their cult indoctrination process works, look at http://tinyurl.com/66qxc but I fear most of you have already drunk the LaRouche Koolaid without even realizing it.

Posted by Izzy Stoner on Jul 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM

I would like for anyone to show me one bit of evidence that can be proven beyond all doubt that 9/11 was a conspiracy within our government.  Show me hard facts and evidence from reputable people that proves that someone within our government authorized and carried out the 9/11 attack. 

Basically, what is actually happening is that our rights as Americans are slowly being eroded and taken away from us by liberal judges and congresspeople and senators.  We are giving more rights to the unlawful than we are the lawful.  We talk about that the bunring of an American flag is an example of freedom of speech, but let me try to say a prayer at a public school function and that freedom is condemned.  Seems like there is somthing fishy here. 

I respect people like Rabbitt’s right to say what he wants, but in return I guess we can also believe in the Tooth Fairy.  When someone has a grudge against the govenment, I guess they can dream up anything that they want to attempt to make others believe that it was the governments fault.

Once again, Wake up and Smell the Roses.  There are people out there who hate us Americans and will do anything to destroy us.  Even you who are espousing the conspiracy theory better start to worry is we lose the War in Iraq.

Posted by True Patriot on Jul 14, 2006 at 1:48 PM

True Patriot

Imagine that you are islamic instead of christain.  Then, in your first post, replace the word muslim with the word chritian and the word american with the words middle easterner.  The difference between what you wrote and how the middle easterners actually feel is that they haven’t invaded our country.  They haven’t killed our innocent civilians (note, again, that the fbi has no evidence that osama was involved with the 911 attacks), they haven’t raped our women.  Who are the terrorists?  Do you or the average Iraqi citizen in Baghdad feel more terrorized each day?  Before you go ranting and raving with your fanatical religious based views you might try looking at things a bit more objectively.  I’d like to think your not a complete brainwashed idiot, but you make that very hard. 

Just to reiterate, our country and our way of life is not in danger.  Their’s is.  I see no reason why we americans should be allowed to assume the role of world police and go about prescribing our morals all over this planet.  We haven’t the right.

And another thing.  We are losing our rights, that is for certain.  But we aren’t losing them to the liberals.  The patriot act, the wire tapping, the tracking of money, all these are done by our current regime and I think we can all agree that they aren’t liberals.

Posted by chad on Jul 14, 2006 at 2:05 PM

true servile brownshirt

there were bombs in the buildings.

FDNY said so

bushole said there were none

bushole’s brother ran security

YOUR ignorance is what threatens this country, this world.

http://www.911revisited.com

watch the movie

Posted by Diggins on Jul 14, 2006 at 3:18 PM

Latest article:

Ignorance is Strength?
Crimes of the State
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com

(too long to post here)

Excerpt:

They Lied Repeatedly About Being Warned

The White House Press Secretary, Ari Flieischer, aboard Air Force One that day, was asked if there were any warnings. His two word response to the press: “No warnings.”

Similarly, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice lied continuously about pre-9/11 warnings:

“No one predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile…” -Condoleezza Rice, CBS News, 5/17/02

“And had this President known of something more specific, or known that a plane was going to be used as a missile, he would have acted on it. (...) To the degree that hijacking was an issue, it was traditional hijacking.” -Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice, May 16 2002, Whitehouse

So why weren’t airport screeners warned? She admits here that “hijacking WAS an issue.”

“Had we thought that there was an attack coming in Washington or New York, we would have moved heaven and earth to try and stop it.” -Rice to 9-11 Commission, CNN

That’s interesting, since the opposite was true:

“Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia and London reported in the months before September 11th of a blizzard of warnings delivered to the Bush administration from all points on the compass. The German intelligence service BND warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a similar plane-based plot against Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa last June, a warning taken so seriously that anti-aircraft batteries were placed around Columbus Airport in Italy.”

“Last August (2001), Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered “in the strongest possible terms” specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings. In that same month, the Israeli security agency Mossad issued a warning to both the FBI and CIA that up to 200 bin Laden followers were planning a major assault on America, aimed at vulnerable targets. The Los Angeles Times later confirmed via unnamed US officials that the Mossad warnings had been received.” -Newsweek, May 20, 2002

In Genoa, at the G-8 summit, it was reported:

“U.S. President George W. Bush will not stay with other world leaders because of fear of terrorist attack.” -G8 summit death shocks leaders, CNN, July 21, 2001

(...)

And, of course the famous Presidential Daily Briefing:

“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.(...) CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.” -August 6, 2001, Presidents’ Daily Briefing (heavily redacted unclassified version)

Posted by johndoraemi on Jul 14, 2006 at 5:15 PM

Ignorance is Strength:? Cont’d

ACTIONS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

I’ll leave it to another article to touch upon the Pakistani ISI financing of Mohamed Atta, and the high-level meetings between ISI chief Ahmed and Bush administration operatives.

So what happened on September 11th?

It’s pretty hard to ignore that after Bush was told by Andrew Card that, “America is under attack,” at about 9:05am, in the Booker Elementary School classroom, Bush continued to sit there. And to sit there. And to sit there.

Why did our fearless leader do that?

One clue appeared in the Washington Times, and seems to answer the question (because they told him to!):

“The president noticed someone moving at the back of the room. It was White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, maneuvering to catch his attention without alerting the press. Mr. Fleischer was holding up a legal pad. Big block letters were scrawled on the cardboard backing: DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET. ” -Suddenly, a time to lead, By Bill Sammon, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, October 7, 2002

The Secret Service did nothing to secure the President, and left him at a publicly announced location—out in the open—as unknown (?) numbers of hijacked passenger planes swirled around the nation’s skies. Standard procedure with the Secret Service is always to whisk away the protected person to a safe location at the first hint of danger. This protective action is what Dick Cheney claimed happened to him, although the actual time of this occurrence is in dispute. Why wasn’t the same protection afforded to frontman Bush?

Standard procedures were not followed on September 11th 2001, and not just with the Secret Service.

Bush admits that he was aware that the first plane had struck the World Trade Center North Tower even before he entered the classroom.

(...)

So, when the second plane hit, there was no room for doubt about what was happening, even forgetting about all the behind the scenes communications with Secret Service, NORAD, and the FAA. But planes don’t just crash into buildings without going off course first.

Hijackings had been known to FAA as early as 8:13am.

“At approximately 8:13, Flight 11 was instructed by air traffic controllers at the FAA

Posted by johndoraemi on Jul 14, 2006 at 5:18 PM

Ignorance is Strength? Cont’d 2

Rather, the Andrews Air Force Base website was changed to eliminate the “highest possible state of readiness” from the descriptions. Some pundits claimed that Andrews was not supposed to protect Washington DC, mimicking the new and revised Andrews website, but that is absurd. Andrews is where Air Force One flies into and out of (as it did later that same day with Bush aboard, escorted by three fighter jets).

Andrews had the 121st Fighter Squadron/113th Fighter Wing with F-16s, as well as the 321st Marine Attack Fighter Squadron equipped with FA/18s.

Immediately after the Pentagon was attacked Andrews Air Force Base provided an “air cap” cover over Washington DC.

“Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.”

“But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon…”—San Diego Union-Tribune, 12 September 2001

“It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a—a protective cover over Washington, DC.”—NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET), September 11 2001

Air Force General Richard Myers: “When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked…”

Senator Carl Levin: “Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?”

MYERS: “That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.” -Senate Armed Services Committee Transcript, Hearing On Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff

Why no protection before the attack on the Pentagon? It certainly “became clear what the threat was” at 8:45am, when the first World Trade Center Tower was devastated by a hijacked commercial airliner! Mr. Myers would have us believe that it took an additional hour for people in the Pentagon to realize how serious the situation was, and to do anything about it.

That is Myers’ testimony, and for that they made him the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Posted by johndoraemi on Jul 14, 2006 at 5:20 PM

Ignorance is Strength? Cont’d 3

Vice President Richard Cheney

No account of 9-11 would be complete without the actions of Dick Cheney, the “prime suspect” in the words of former LAPD detective Michael Ruppert.

There actually was a shortage of jet fighter craft on the morning of September 11th (although you would think they could have located 1 to protect Washington DC, given 80 minutes advanced warning). This shortage happened because a minimum of five known major war game exercises were occuring simultaneously (Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon). These exercises pulled most of the Northeast sector’s fighter jets up and into Canada and Alaska.

Other simulations running during the 9-11 attacks included a live “hijacking drill” and a simulation of a plane crashing into a building by the National Reconnaissance Office just as actual planes started crashing into actual buildings.

Coincidentally, Dick Cheney was the person in direct command of all military preparedness exercises, given the responsibility by Bush on May 8 of 2001:

“President Bush May 8 directed Vice President Dick Cheney to coordinate development of U.S. government initiatives to combat terrorist attacks on the United States.” -US State Department, Cheney to Oversee Domestic Counterterrorism Efforts, President announces new homeland defense initiative

“Therefore, I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.” -Bush, May 8, 2001, Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction

“Although the announcement focused on weapons of mass destruction, the central issue and rationale for Cheney’s management role was ‘seamless’ communication and coordination of responses.” -Crossing the Rubicon, p.414, Michael Ruppert

Next we have Dick Cheney arriving in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) at a time that is not able to be pinpointed.

“(Transportation Secretary Norman) Mineta testified that he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 a.m. and that Vice President Cheney was already present with his staff. “The 9/11 Commission Report” states that Cheney himself arrived at the PEOC at 9:58, a stunning 38 minute contradiction to Mineta

Posted by johndoraemi on Jul 14, 2006 at 5:22 PM

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/video_bomb_in_building.htm

Fireman - Theres a bomb in the building.  Start clearing out.

VIDEO

Posted by Diggins on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:03 PM

i may have missed something but this is the 1st i’ve heard mention of ruppert’s book. it is absolutely clear and unrefuted in crossing the rubicon that cheney and co. was and is the enemy. if we cannot accept this we deserve everything that we have coming. if we cannot accept the enemy is u.s. we will continue to be the victims of our own government. we know they are illegitimate. we know they have raped our constitution. why? what the fuck are we thinking?

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:04 PM

Loquacious Lagomorph is the idiot of the ITT village. 

Lagomorph is uniquely unqualified to comment on civil engineering, economics, politics, or any of the myriad things he comments on, having no education, qualifications, or introspection in these fields.  He is motivated by hatred of authority, being a self-confessed anarchist, and undoubtedly influenced by his criminal record and past problems with what he considers as authority figures.  But motivation is not competence, and there is zero evidence to support any of the radical positions he takes on matters in which he is utterly incompetent.  Lagomorph is as dumb as a turnip, not to put too fine a point on it. 

Full disclosure: I am a registered professional engineer and carried a quarryman (explosive demolitions) MOS while in the Army.

To illustrate how Lagomorph’s conspiratorial mind works, on a previous thread he cited a photo reproduced by Rense (Rense!) showing a column that had been cut on a diagonal.  The photo was cited as evidence of thermite (or thermate) cutting by the photographer and by Lagomorph.  The cut on the column is quite clean, and has diagonal striations that look for all the world like the mark of a cutting torch.  When I have used thermite, the steel is melted into an amorphous lump.  Regardless, Lagomorph insists that he is an expert on welding and thermite, and that the picture shows a thermite reaction taken to termination.

http://rense.com/general70/pphe.htm

Not a chance.  The center column in the picture cited above, cut on a diagonal, has dimensions that agree closely with the external columns of the WTC 1 and 2 buildings, including the square shape and the building-side flange running the length of the column.  Thermite would certainly cut a column, but only if it were contained within a firebrick or ceramic enclosure surrounding the column (we often used red ceramic flowerpots to contain thermite in the Army). 

To make the cut, the exterior glass on both sides of the column would have to be removed, the exterior and interior coverings and fireproof insulation on the columns would have to be removed, the fire brick/ ceramic container would have to be built around and affixed to the column, and the thermite and ignition system would have to be installed.  This would be highly visible from inside the building and from the street.  The conspiracy theorists would have you believe that this happened many times both on the exterior columns and on the (much larger) interior columns.  Yet there are no reports or photos of bulky thermite devices strapped on columns, either inside or outside the building.

Alternatively, the conspiracy theorists talk of explosive demolitions mounted on the internal and external columns, but this would require the same access to the columns, but with a smaller package profile; no fire brick.  Still, the explosive packages would have to be fairly massive UNLESS the columns were cut open and the explosives mounted inside the hollow columns.  Explosive demolition or thermite demolition of large buildings involves thousands of man-hours of highly visible activity, and a cast of at least hundreds.

If you pour a big ladle of molten steel, there is lots of heat, light, and sparks generated.  Several hundred thermite charges should have the same effect, with the added visibility from being widely distributed at internal and external columns throughout the buildings.  Did not happen. 

Continue ...

Posted by scorp on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:05 PM

Posted by Diggins on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:06 PM

Continued from above ... 

Similarly, explosive demolitions of buildings always follow a sequence: blast, followed by great clouds of dust, followed by movement of the building.  But this is not what was seen in the thousands of videos of WTC.  The building started to collapse, and the dust was generated at the point where the concrete was fracturing, near where the aircraft hit.  .  The dust followed the descending building, and not the other way around.  No blast effect or dust was observed in the lower floors until the upper floors collapsed onto them.  Look at the videos.  Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?

The above points were made to Lagomorph on a previous thread, Was the Presidential Election Stolen?  And here is the proof of the welding torch/ thermite argument:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/thermite.htm

1) First photo is identical to the Rense photo cited above.  Note the diagonal striations on the face of the diagonal cut on the center column above the fireman’s head.

2) Second photo labeled “October” shows two more diagonally cut exterior columns.

3) Fourth photo shows a welder cutting on a column.  Judging from the size and spacing, these are interior columns.  Note that on the right of the picture, fireproofing has been removed from the column, and a diagonal acetylene cut has been partially completed.  Also note the cutting torch jutting out to the left from the cherry-picker platform, and the bright glow from the cutting that the welder is engaged in. 

4) Fifth picture is a close-up from the fourth picture, showing the partially complete acetylene cut.

Now I have spent an hour or so absolutely refuting one point made by Lagomorph and his fellow conspiracy theorists (42% of the population???). And there are hundreds or thousands more points, all equally silly, but who has time to answer all of them? 

Lagomorph and the conspiracy theorists are not engaged in rational discussion, they are engaged in psychological games rooted in their ignorance and inadequacy.  When they say there is no “proof”, they mean that there is nothing that can be said that they will accept as proof.  Any point that is disproven gets a “yes, but” response, and dozens more equally ridiculous points are raised. 

All this is fine and dandy, unless these clowns achieve political power.  Then you will have corruption, inefficiency, and mass murder, similar to the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.  That is what we fight against.

Posted by scorp on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:09 PM

our nation did it. now what are we to do? we are fucked. we can’t do a god damned thing. the constitution is but a goddamned piece of paper. it seems a wee bit late to be debating in such futile and complicated terms what is past. where is the evidence? gone. we have only to lay down or stand up. we must remember our past and fight for freedom. we must shut down this government.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:13 PM

we might all agree we have nothing to do with what is going on. nothing said on this page will influence anything. it serves only as a pathetic whimper under the radar of power. those who know the government is the true enemy can shut it down. but not by arguing ad infinitum about details. everyone who knows the truth should stop paying taxes. while we argue, they are killing. there is no apparatus of justice any longer. there is no representative government. wake the fuck up.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:27 PM

corpse, i was wondering where you were. you are so very very lost little boy. where will you live when you and your kind have destroyed everything?

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:36 PM

Silly Bat Nat

The video taped confesion you speak of was never endorsed even as genuine by the US gov in the end, and everybody knows by now it was fake.

I’ve already posted the fact that the FBI have NO credible evidence of Bin Laden involvment. THEY don’t buy the tape, even the CIA don’t buy the tape anymore in fact I’m not sure they ever did.  The FBI were not even seeking Bin Laden as the perp, ever. That explains a lot then doesn’t it? 

If Natty can produce one single credible piece of admission from OBL of responsibility, Rabbit will admit she is right about everything!  A challenge.  I already know there is no such thing, because there isn’t.  Stories from the New York Times saying he did so aren’t going to cut it by the way you dim bulb.  Osama Bin Laden is dead or living quietly in his cave with his dialysis machine writing his memoirs.            My life as a CIA agent…by TIM OSSMAN.

Worse than all this is that YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT.  Rabbit knows you knew it because we have been there before.  You know that much of what you post is lies, for you have been crushed like a bug so many times on these issues by many people.  That you would repeat them yet again, as part of your interlocking chain of lies and prevarications, is as revolting and loathsome as the act of covering up for the murderers which is your primary role. Shill.
. 
Fake BIN LADEN video  Natty has seen all this of course, proving she knows she lies.

Even the BBC at the time wasn’t buying it.  Natalie has also seen the reports from various intelligence agencies also discounting this tape and others like it.  But no need to waste more space here to prove not even the simple little lie of OBL being behind it can stand any scrutiny.

Alex Jones as always on the ball about such things.  Look at all the fakey tapeys.  Of course the fact they are making fakes in the first place is proof they know he didn’t do it.  Most informed people think he is dead and has been for quite a while anyway. 

Interview with the real OBL.

October 16, 2001—An interview with Osama bin Laden was published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001. In this interview, bin Laden says of the September 11 attacks in the US:
“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

“It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people . . . “

Let’s put it this way Natalie and the new silly shill pair, Fake Patriot and Izzy Stoned, I cannot know that the Neo-con beastmen are directly behind 911, but in the absence of Osama Bin Laden as a suspect, they are the most likely.  Of course Mossad had every reason to do it, and Israeli leaders were unique in expressing satisfaction that 911 happened.  Also the only dancing people I recall were those Dancing Israeli Mossad agents.  But I’m not one who tends to draw much demarcation between Mossad and the Neo-Conmen.  It’s all the same to me, because whoever did it also controls the USA.

Bush and Cheney, mainly Cheney were most likely directly responsible in the absence of better suspects.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 14, 2006 at 8:57 PM

There are new facts and evidence which is coming out from time to time, and this is one of the most interesting.

Now what do we make of this?  It proves nothing, of course, except once again, it is consistent with, the scenario of an inside job.  Over and over the most likely explanation of the facts points clearly in the same direction.  It is good that we have a few more shills on thread now. Let’s see them rise above their pathetic and ill aimed ad-hominem and character assasinations to actually discussing the important issues, which do all they bleat for and more.

What you creeps need to do is build some sort of chain of interlocking evidence, according to the Terry Allen article which drew you scuzz bags like flys to rotting meat, you need one of those.

As for us we have one. It fills the first half dozen posts on this thread, and nobody after reading them and checking the sources given can doubt the basic contention that the official conspiracy theory has nothing except faith to back it up.

A completely logical, scientifically plausible, historically proven explanation of exactly why the THREE WTCs collapsed like they did.

You Faith Brigaders have only got a set of questionable theories based on the suspension of various laws including Newtons.  Another law you see suspended is that about conserving the evidence from a crime scene. 

The Fake Patriot as well as Izzy Stoned can kiss my furry backside. Welcome Shills and morons, your Waterloo is here.

Prove me wrong if you can you lowly SKUZ BUCKETS, or else do the only thing you can and indulge in an emotive rhetorical ad-hominem slinging match.  By all means do this thing, Rabbit enjoys painting the walls of a discussion thread with the virtual blood of mentally crippled denialist cringers.
I’d rather civilly discuss actual facts and their interpretations along with their place in the overall theory of what happened.  BUT unlike you turkey gobblers who have something to hide, all I and most truth people are asking for is an independant and FULL investigation, because the official story isn’t worth shit.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 14, 2006 at 10:02 PM

Such details as the following are never broached by the faith brigaders.  See how they will deal with the following. Ignoring the fact presented which could be verified quite simply via the internet, they will instead atack the messenger. Claiming no doubt he would lie about something like this for some personal gain.  They will waffle and rant for pages, but not once to actually check and thus prove or disprove the fact being contended.  That the planes mentioned could not have been flown manually in the way in which they flew. Added to the fact that various military and commercial pilots have stated that the maneuvers performed were exceptionally difficult for the most experienced pilots if not impossible for most. Once again, as always our evidence chain is UNBROKEN. Every known detail is consistent not with a fairy tale theory based on faith, but with a much more common and historical occurence, a false flag attack on ones own people to herd them into a war which would not otherwise be possible.

by Jim Heikkila
Saturday August 17, 2002

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL.

Two of the planes exceeded their software limits.

Terra-ists who couldn’t fly a kite, with boxcutters, my fluffy foot.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 14, 2006 at 10:28 PM

Doug, you call my Scorpy ..............Corpse?  That is excellent, but I’ll have you know he is the rabbit’s personal troll.  Rabbit took him for a pet a long time ago.  Yet it sounds like you know him well? 

He has been experimenting with some hose I think and one of his odd habits on another thread, and has just finished a fine meal of his own foot, one of his favorite repasts.

Of course I shall not answer any of his post for it reeks of one of his pompous long winded rants.  Suffice it to say that while presenting the photo of the collumn he mentioned, I also posted articles about Thermate, not thermite, and the testing of WTC steel having shown the requisite traces which confirm this as a likely cuting agent.  Scorpy actually doesn’t know anything about engineering or steel cuting with either Oxy or Explosives.  If so then know he should that an explosives cut would indeed look this this as is described.  However, the photo may or may not be of a thermate cut, I conceded this from the outset, foolish Scorp Corpse, but whether or not the column is one or the other, it neither weakens the explosive demolition theory, nor supports in any way the official theory.

It might have strengthened the explosve case, but this case already has more than enough to make it the only feasible scenario anyway.  We can call the photo inconclusive if that makes you feel better. 

Now about those videos, the chemical analysis, the molten steel, the witnesses inside and outside the building and Lary Silverstein’s slip of the tongue?

More to the point is the molten steel under the building for many days after.  Quite simply without the sort of temperatures of Thermite, even regular explosives would not have caused such an event.  No fire that ever even was theoreticalkly possible on 911 was hot enough to melt steel.  No such thing has ever happened before and NO theory is even contemplated which could explain it.

Rabbit has actually heard these desperados begin to babble on abhout kinetic energy from the falling steel.  They try to calculate the amount of kinetic energy and convet that to thermal energy and then apply that to a certain quantity of steel, and voila, iut proves in their tiny minds that such a thing is possible.

As for that fuel, you apes need to stop re-using that same batch of fuel over and over. Either it was that ful involved in the big explosions when the planes crashed or it was not. Now it did look a lot like a fuel explosion (with a little help) to this old pyrottechnician rabbit.

Natalie wants to use the fuel again though, even though it was indeed taken into account in the official calculations of the fires, in fact it was calculated as if it was all still available to burn, after the initial impact explosions.  They pretend that all that fuel is still now going to feed the fires. Then they use the theoretical hottest temperature for such fuel to burn, which is what happens in a jet engine.  But a big skyscraper like the WTCs is not anything like a jet engine of course, but who cares, they certainly don’t.  Using these figures they applied them to Steel.  Not to my knowledge do they actually calculate the using the thermal properties even of the actual Columns, taking into account the volume to surface area or anything remotely as honest.

After all this the intrepid investigators claim it is “possible”, not likely, but possible that such a set of circumstances might have brought about the WTC collpases.

Of course this doesn’t even begin to explain WTC 7, which they admit.

I could feel pity for the morons who buy into such a farcical fairy tale, but its hard to get over the disgust.

Scorpy your emotional little boastful rant about the rabbit, doesn’t seen to have made you stand as tall as you had hoped, are you still doing that thing you do, without the tubing perhaps?

Scorpy demostrates his immaculate wisdom and knowledge by suggesting Rabbit’s political persuasion of Anarchism makes him in some way unreasonable.  Having mentioned that I am an Anarcho-socialist, the Corpse thinks this means Rabbit wants to run around throwing bombs in windows and running amok.  The idea of individual responsibility is of course a novel one to a good little brownshirt like our sCorpse.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 14, 2006 at 10:56 PM

<i>So I shall talk to you, Rabbit, about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn’t forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn’t include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn’t respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children

Posted by Natalie on Jul 14, 2006 at 11:09 PM

The case for Thermate  Only the facts matter, which is why they will be ignored by the shills.  Expect lots of mud and slime of Prof Jones instead.

Scientific analysis on WTC steel debris undertaken by BYU Professor Steven Jones proves that the twin towers were demolished by means of incendiary devices and the release of the conclusive evidence is imminent.

Jones’ has conducted over 40 peer reviewed scientific studies two of which were published in Nature and Scientific American.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 14, 2006 at 11:12 PM

Natalie what is that rubbish you just wasted all that space on.?

The October 2004 video is another fake, they have all been billed fakes since the one of October 2001 and an interview or two not long after.  The only confirmed staements from OBL have denied his involvment.  Your red-herring about wanting to cover his tracks is hilarious. Terrorism is not meant to be secret, that’s a hallmark of government terrorism by the way.  Real terrorists always claim responsibility, its the point of the whole thing you twerp!

Osama bin Laden died in December 2001

For genuine thinking people, not shills of course.  Pearls and swine & all that.
October 7, 2002

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN)—Osama bin Laden is “probably” dead, but former Taliban leader Mullah Omar is alive, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said. “I would come to believe that [bin Laden] probably is dead,” Karzai said on CNN’s “Late Edition” on Sunday. “But still, you never know. He might be alive. Five months ago, six months ago, I was thinking that he was alive. “The more we don’t hear of him, and the more time passes, there is the likelihood that he probably is either dead or seriously wounded somewhere.”

Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen
October 16, 2002

Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen TEL AVIV—Osama Bin Laden appears to be dead but his colleagues have decided that Al Qaida and its insurgency campaign against the United States will continue, Israeli intelligence sources said. The Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported.

Bin Laden’s funeral.  Obviously why nobody has been looking for him since 2002.  Even the special Bin Laden hunting team is shut down.  They just couldn’t be bothered with keeping the shop front anymore since it wasn’t needed to convince dropkicks like you dear.  You believe any old crap without more than a need to do so anyway.  Does it matter if there is or isn’t a real Bin laden?  Of course not, the allegory of Snowball in Animal Farm or of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984, is exactly referring to this.

Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:
al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633
News of Bin Laden’s Death and Funeral 10 days ago
Islamabad - A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa’da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.
————————————————————————————————————————

Here is a photo from a fake video from October 2004. It is not Osama bin Laden who is on the video:
http://www.geocities.com/evian0630fra/fakebinladen004.jpg

Here is a photo from a fake video from 2001. It is not Osama bin Laden:
http://www.geocities.com/evian0630fra/fakebinladen010.jpg

Photo from another fake video. It is not Al-Zawahiri:
http://www.geocities.com/evian0630fra/fakealzawahiri006.jpg

Photo from another fake video. It is not Al-Zawahiri:
http://www.geocities.com/evian0630fra/fakealzawahiri003.jpg

Links:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead
http://www.geocities.com/evian0630f…ndzawahiri.html
http://www.miff.no/porten/viewtopic…1868&highlight;=

The FBI don’t consider any of the so-called Bin Laden admissions have been genuine, in case you are forgetting anyway.  As you say, an admission would be an excellent bit of evidence, so long as it was genuine.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 14, 2006 at 11:20 PM

“On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.

“It’s not a lack of trust in technology,” said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. “We certainly don’t have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority.”“

BTW, my reference to fuel was regarding the fact that the designers of the wtc didn’t take its effect into account along with the impact of the 707 plane.  I wasn’t talking about the 2001 attack.

——————————-vv—————————-  (content below this line added 8/5/06)

Before you incorporate the arguments put forth by the 9/11 “truth” movement into your daily interactions with friends and family, you may want to fact check them first, and consider them in the context of common sense.  You will be spared possibly permanent embarrassment if you simply run your revelation du jour through the following before opening your mouth at that party, or sending that email to that friend who still assumes you are sane.—- Natalie, the Fruit Bat.  mmmmm…....fruit

9/11 myths
Debunking 911
Peer reviewed papers debunking the “truth” movement.
(using Steven E. Jones’ standard for peer review)  ;-)

16% of people believe in UFOs.  6% believe in bombs and missiles.

(most of this 6% don’t have more than a high school education and/or live in trailer parks)  (not that there’s anything wrong with that—I don’t, and I used to!)

Not a single institute of Structural, Civil, Fire and Safety or Demolition Engineers on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Architects on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Engineers in any field on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

Which begs the question— Why do you?  Oh yeah…...faith.

——————————-  content below this line added 8/10/06 —————————————

We all know that the select group of incredibly intelligent and talented people who are capable of designing and building huge structures such as the World Trade Center Twin Towers universally agree that a combination of airplane impact damage, heat from fire and gravity caused their collapse.

However, it should also be noted that another group of highly accomplished people, comprised of those that are capable of safely demolishing such structures, concurs.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 14, 2006 at 11:27 PM

“The October 2004 video is another fake, they have all been billed fakes since the one of October 2001 and an interview or two.”

By who, exactly Rabbit?  Anyone credible?  Please post links.

Gotta admit, you are pretty quick with those paws!!  Hope your keyboard holds up.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 14, 2006 at 11:32 PM

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous rationalizations that regularly gets repeated by the AQDL.  (al-Qaeda defense league)

If anyone can point out a time in history when a quarter mile high structure, of similar light-weight truss construction, was hit broadside by a near fully-fueled jet liner at full speed, resulting in significant damage to the structure, massive fire, suppression of sprinker systems, and removal of the fireproofing material from the steel, and it didn’t collapse, then I would grant that they would have a point.

If anyone can point out a time in history when a 47 story building was massively damaged by a falling quarter-mile high structure, had massive fires likely fed by large diesel tanks for several hours, had unusual transfer truss construction and was observed to have a large bulge in it, and it didn’t collapse, I would grant them another point.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 15, 2006 at 12:11 AM

My goodness, Major Major,

You’re just another squib video away from joining this circus.  You seem to have bought into a lot of other myths, or at least distortions, so I think you might be a prime candidate for conversion.

The impression I get from your post is that you think it’s not debatable that foreign policy decisions made by the Bush administration are wrong.  On the other hand, you seem to think that the possibility of bombs in buildings shouldn’t be ruled out.  Do I read you right on that?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 15, 2006 at 12:34 AM

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/video_bomb_in_building.htm

Fireman - Theres a bomb in the building.  Start clearing out.

VIDEO

Posted by Diggins on Jul 15, 2006 at 12:49 AM

Natalie (why do I bother?)

BTW, my reference to fuel was regarding the fact that the designers of the wtc didn’t take its effect into account along with the impact of the 707 plane.  I wasn’t talking about the 2001 attack.  

Yes they did Natalie.  Read it.  Besides which, so what? the fuel was burnt in the explosion.  Easy to see, even to quantify.  The fuel could not have burnt at the temperatures claimed, the temperatures claimed would still not have melted the steel, and on and on it goes.  Nothing is nothing no matter how many times you prove nothing.

I have looked at the Seattle Times article which is apparently the basis for the claim that the software could be overidden by the pilot.  Which without further ado is enough for the rabbit.  See that Nat, it doesn’t hurt a bit to admit one was mistaken.
 
Unfortunately for you this is what we are left with.

The fact that the 757 and 767 had software based limitations on their maneuverability characteristics, which could be overidden by the pilots does not explain how the incompetant and inexperienced magic arabs managed to turn off that system, and negotiate maneuvers which experienced Military and airliner pilots have stated outright are extremely difficult or impossible even for them, let alone novices.  Making the point which I grant you that the pilots might have been able to override the software, doesn’t preclude the more likely scenario which had the planes flown by remote, which was undoubtedly possible.  Your article at least does me the favour of eliminating the need to prove they could have been flown by remote, thankyou.

The elephant in the living room is that we are not really obligated to answer all these questions about who how and why, since that is what an impartial and proper investigation would be seeking to establish. We have raised enough doubt to justify a full and independant investigation.  ANYONE who would deny this is living in an impossibly desperate denial, or has a vested interest in hiding the truth.

Me quick dear?  Not at all, you are so predictable.  I already have the next two weeks posts ready for you.

Natalie you conveniently ignore in your huge leap of faith, the fact that you have yet to actually assemble more than an outside possibility of your own weird tale of Arab magicians with boxcutters and even more faith than you my dear.  You have at no time ever presented any shred of evidence that Explosive demolition charges are not a likely and plausible theory from the observable evidence and science.  There isn’t any sort of refutation that this is a possible scenario.  Beyond random spoutings like that you just espoused.  The only argument against is FAITH.  Faith in the Bush administration.  Is there anybody else who is chuckling at that sentence?  Faith in the Bush adminstration to do the right thing, or not to do the wrong thing?  You are to be commended on your faith dears, the rapture bus will be along to carry you off into heaven any moment now.

Natalie my dear, your camp is so starved for anything which normally passes for evidence, that within a short while, your own postings will be passed off by one of your colleagues as more “proof” inaq another forum.  Some other desperate shill looking for a bit of smoke and mirror effect.  More grist for the faith based mill. 

.........................^^........................

A sensible road would be to accept the unavoidable tuth that Explosive demos is the most likely scenario, but there is some suggestion that etc….  and then to try and cobble some sort of theoretical model together which at least made a credible scenario. 

That would give you the benefit of starting with a clean slate.  Problem is you try to claim something which was in every way a normal explosive demolition of skyscrapers except for the people present in the wrong place at the wrong time, is somehow a wild conspiracy theory.  When the reality stands that you need to prove it was anything but, because it was undeniably a very good impression of a controlled demolition.

The shoe really is not upon your foot pet, it is on the other foot, rabbit is the other.  You need to start producing something more than your chicken scratchings and herring hunts.  Try a new trick like accepting some obvious fact as at least reason for concern, admit maybe a new investigation might be a good idea or something.  Anything but this craven absolutism, against all reason. 

The impression I get from your post is that you think it’s not debatable that foreign policy decisions made by the Bush administration are wrong.  On the other hand, you seem to think that the possibility of bombs in buildings shouldn’t be ruled out.  Do I read you right on that?

The foreign policy decisions made by the Bushlings are wrong, that is certainly not debatable, is anyone seriously suggesting otherwise?  One does get a few laughs out of this Bat.

You have to admire someone with such a complete disregard for their own credibility.  Her lack of self respect is what makes this Bat so hard to enjoy for long.  It makes Rabbit feel like he once did many moons since, when a doe he was scragging asked him to hit her! To actually hurt her in the process.  The poor rabbit’s little thingy went all puny at the suggestion and he didn’t finish what he had set out to achieve.  Sad and nasty idea it turned him off.  People should have more self respect.

The possibility of bombs in the building is at the very least established. It is as it happens the most likely theory of the building’s collapse, given the unbroken chain of evidence.  It is fullfilling of Terry’s criteria.  Now it’s your turn, see if you can make anything which can stand solid in it’s irrefutable support of the fable.  Any real evidence of an Arab or a Muslim?  Any credible evidence that such a fire could do such a thing to such a building, or indeed to any building?  Then when you have both of those, you’ll need to explain the exercises which covered for the actual hijackings, and the put options on the two companies, and the dancing Israelis, and you will of course have to explain just why all those people claimed to have seen and heard explosions and why one person and fourteen witnesses say he was burned in an explosion in the basement BEFORE the plane hit.

Then Natalie you might want to explain why the government agencies have kept all the evidence secret to date, even from the 911 commission, and while you’re at it we’d like a credible explanation as to why the evidence was disposed of in such undue haste and against not only protocol but the law as well.

If you can cover all those questions Natalie and I’m sure there will be a few more from others too, then you might be in a position to suggest that NO NEW INVESTIGATION is needed.  For it gives me pleasure to bring you to the edge of the precipice of honour as I ask the simple question. 

Don’t you think a new and impartial investigation would be a good idea, oh sensible and clever girl?

Given all the doubt and all. Given its cucial role in Patriot acts and wars on Terror etc, wouldn’t it seem like a really clever campaign tto actually investigate it and be all up front and open about things? Considering it is affecting the aboslute credibility of the US government on the home front as well as the international stage?

Watch the answer people and judge for yourselves.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 15, 2006 at 1:14 AM

Proving the negative…..........This sort of reasoning is actually historically new.  I would call it Neocon reasoning.  Proving the negative is something we once learnt cannot be done.  Guess that’s why these nut-jobs require it so often. 

Natalie

“If anyone can point out a time in history when a quarter mile high structure, of similar light-weight truss construction, was hit broadside by a near fully-fueled jet liner at full speed, resulting in significant damage to the structure, massive fire, suppression of sprinker systems, and removal of the fireproofing material from the steel, and it didn’t collapse, then I would grant that they would have a point.”

You forgot some more details, as well as being all owned by the same person; and on a cloudless day; and during the Autumn.

Of course not Natalie we cannot produce this thing.  Oh dear I guess that just proves the official story all in one.

I guess the gig’s up then fellow truthers?  I suppose Natalie has proven the case once and for all.  Outsmarted us.  Oh well Rabbit gives up, Nat the wondrous Bat must be right.  Poor old rabbit, head full of silly ideas obviously.  Its’ true no evidence of two 1/4 mile high buildings and a third quite average skyscraper owned by the same person all fall down at near the speed of gravity on the same day in identical fashion due to an explosive demolition, on a cloudless Autumn day, so I guess we are wrong after all.

Hooray for the Bat!

This resource comes with a Rabbit stamp of approval.  For those who seek a fairly complete record of what has passed in the 911 debate, regarding major exposes, this is a pearl.  For those who seek to understand why the numbers of people who are turning away from the official lies keeps growing.  Here is a good collection of the reasons.

Suck din shills, don’t you wish you had some nice unbroken chains of evidence to present?  But nope, no Arabs, no skills, no fires even that counted for much, no witnesses who can claim your fairy tale is true, even some who supposedly saw people in windows in planes are setting the record straight .  No videos, no structural evidence because it was all dispatched under massive security to China within days.  Suck bloody din!

I guess its obvious why character asassination is your favorite method of attack.  AND can any of the regular viewers appreciate the excellent effort Natalie is making to avoid doing exactly that for a change?  hee hee! What a predictable shill. Exactly why Rabbit has been harping on that, knowing it would force the bat into more honest tactics.  Lo and behold doing so has brought her a prize already.  Could the bat be trained away from its sliming antics?  Only time will tell.

You are only falling into Rabbit’s traps as you flay about like a silly bat.
Feeding the bat bits of meat may tenderise its hide and feet.
But letting it flap about and pout and spreading disease with its spiky snout .
Is bound to spread diseased lies claiming cheese and cookies of the skys.
So best to catch that evil sucker and shove it in a sack and chuck her.
Into the pig pen on a farm is better than a bat living in the barn.
If that bat can only spread disease hanging from the rafters with deceptive sleaze.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 15, 2006 at 2:23 AM

Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” 1

The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon’s money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 2 3 Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses which called for “a New Pearl Harbor.” 4

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 15, 2006 at 3:55 AM

yes natalie it does make a kind of sense but is a very great stretch of imagination. every time a disaster occurs many claim responsibility. i claim i did it. meaningless rhetoric. you have to expend a lot of psychic energy to defend the real killers, and i wonder why? what will you gain if the lie becomes accepted through power and repetition. what we end up with is a world in terror that cannot tell truth from lie. none of us will escape the rampage.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 15, 2006 at 8:08 AM

rabbit, your moniker is much greater than corpse. and more generative of truth and naturally, rabbits. yes i know the corpse well. he has been stinking around a long time. of course we americans love a good corpse and recognize corpse’s place in the wonderful biomorphic terrorsoft system we have ingeniously created. corpses will tell tales, but they allow the truth to stand out brighter against their wallpaper.
have you thought about this in the jungian sense, in which we all project the shadow that takes the form of the likes of bushbaby, chaindog, and corpse? they are the vomitus of our collective unconscious.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 15, 2006 at 8:23 AM

Silly Rabbit.  This is what happens when you stop taking your lithium.  BTW, you use the term “beastmen” which is an unusual expression.  Gee, I wonder who else loves to use that term to describe the enemies?  Let’s see what we turn up on Google: http://tinyurl.com/ef9fg .  Well whaddaya know?  It’s Lyndon LaRouche’s favorite expression!  I think you just outed yourself, dude.

Posted by Izzy Stoner on Jul 15, 2006 at 9:28 AM

izzy

you are too damn clever.  you have snared the rabbit.  you caught him using a word that someone else also used.  from this it clearly follows that you cannot trust anything he says.  you sneaky, sneaky man.  but, i notice that you used the word ‘whaddaya’.  where else have i seen that word?  hmm….  oh, jeff foxworthy.  you might be an ignorant redneck if….................

Posted by chad on Jul 15, 2006 at 9:43 AM

Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated:

Posted by Diggins on Jul 15, 2006 at 9:56 AM

So if 9/11 was really a government “inside job”, then why did they go to the trouble of forging Saudi passports for the hijackers?  Why not simply plant Iraqi passports?  Wouldn’t that have made INFINITELY more sense?  Bush & Cheney wouldn’t have had to make up bogus WMD claims in order to justify their invasion of Iraq.  Are you suggesting that the US government can orchestrate something as elaborate as 9/11, but lacks the ability to forge a simple passport?

Posted by Izzy Stoner on Jul 15, 2006 at 10:16 AM

Iz

got speakers on your computer

turn up the volume

play this video

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/video_bomb_in_building.htm

Fireman - Theres a bomb in the building.  Start clearing out.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

why is there the contention there were no bombs?

still, after we have proven there were.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 15, 2006 at 10:25 AM

Diggins,

Your comment: 

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated:

Posted by whattheheck on Jul 15, 2006 at 12:05 PM

Diggins,

you wrote:

Posted by whattheheck on Jul 15, 2006 at 12:36 PM

“The elephant in the living room is that we are not really obligated to answer all these questions”

LOL,  Of course you are!!  Are you telling me that you wouldn’t be outraged if someone accused you of a murder you knew you didn’t commit, and proceeded to drown you in all sorts of circumstantial goings on, and then you were told by this accuser that he didn’t need to answer any questions about them?

Rabbit, just a little common sense would be refreshing.  Don’t you understand that the complete burden of proof is upon folks like you who are making voluminous accusations based on the most ridiculous assumptions?

Who exactly is going to conduct this “independent investigation”?  Are we to assume that this means that the government should be required to turn over every scrap of info they have and allow the likes of Alex Jones to have his way with it?  Please lay out for us the criteria, proceedure and participants for this investigation you demand.  Have the “scholars” even proposed a format?

From your link about the hijackers not being able to pilot an airliner:

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

It’s hard to find much about this Nila fellow, but I did find this:

his bio: An aeronautical engineer-turned-pilot, Sagadevan left Scotland for America in 1972. He lived in Alaska for 15 years when a profound, life-altering experience changed his concept of earthly religions forever, and caused him to deeply ponder the anthropocentric mindset that guides human life. His quest for knowledge and self-inquiry has led him on a journey through more than 40 countries and to many of the centers of the world’s major religions.

Sagadevan, who was the featured guest in a television documentary on extraterrestrial phenomena, also hosted his own radio program, The Open Mind, in the 1980s. Sagadevan’s writings-on world affairs, race relations, spirituality, and other subjects-have appeared in a variety of magazines and newspapers. He lives with his wife and teenage son in Southern California. “

Sorry, no link.  But it would appear that this guy is far from a reliable information source.  He sounds like a nut.

On the other hand, this guy appears to be the real deal.

He has a point by point rebuttal to Sagadevan, whose credentials appear to me somewhat questionable.  (180k pdf)

Posted by Natalie on Jul 15, 2006 at 1:51 PM

sounds like a nut is kind of cute coming from natalia nutbush. good you have your nuttly credentials to determine where the other nuts fall.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 15, 2006 at 2:48 PM

izzy the stoner. i guess in my day stoners had a bit of an anarchic bent. why do you get stoned? isn’t it to free your mind?

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 15, 2006 at 2:55 PM

natalie i think you need an enema, not an enemy.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 15, 2006 at 2:59 PM

That’s real substantive, doug.

What are you, fifteen?

Why don’t you adress the point, and dig me up something that inspires confidence in Nila Sagadevan?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 15, 2006 at 3:02 PM

While the titanic was sinking passengers heard explosions in the ship. In this case the “Official Story” would be wrong using the same conspiracy theory logic. To this day no one really knows what exactly caused the sound, only that it sounded like an explosion. Some say it was the steel snapping as the ship broke in two. Other say it was the hot steam engines hitting the cold water which exploded. Using Conspiracy Theory logic it was blown up because witnesses characterized the sound as an “Explosion”.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 15, 2006 at 3:05 PM

natalie you are quit the bullshitter. how far can you sling a cow-pie? just tell us who you work for and then we can visualize you smoking them big cigars.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 15, 2006 at 3:05 PM

nat, conspiracy is not theory. conspiracy is an action caused by two or more people. theory is what the status quo uses to debase science and scientific fact.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 15, 2006 at 3:09 PM

Natalie dear,
you might take your own advice pertaining to common sense.  The Rabbit is arguing that all ‘you guys’ do is accept on faith that this happened just exactly the way we were told it did. 

Your claim is that you argue based on facts, not faith.

So, you post a link to this silly, supposedly damning, paper that is your evidence.  Then, you post the following:

“In other words, you don

Posted by chad on Jul 15, 2006 at 3:14 PM

no enlightened one, i am but a trifle, fourteen year old, but i know i liar when she speaks and your substance is a reservoir of lies. so fuck off with your petty remarks.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 15, 2006 at 3:17 PM

Are you saying what a fireman said is

Posted by Diggins on Jul 15, 2006 at 3:32 PM

could you sign this if you haven’t already?

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172

thank you
dave

Posted by Diggins on Jul 15, 2006 at 5:03 PM

You’re fourteen?  Seriously?   Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

Anything on the pilot/searching for himself and UFOs guy yet?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 15, 2006 at 10:00 PM

My goodness, Major Major,

You’re just another squib video away from joining this circus.  You seem to have bought into a lot of other myths, or at least distortions, so I think you might be a prime candidate for conversion.

The impression I get from your post is that you think it’s not debatable that foreign policy decisions made by the Bush administration are wrong.  On the other hand, you seem to think that the possibility of bombs in buildings shouldn’t be ruled out.  Do I read you right on that?

Actually, I usually avoid the videos because they take too long to download.  But I have examined a lot of 911 websites over the last few days and I’m willing to commit to a few preliminary conclusions with respect to some of the topics covered in this thread.

First of all, Judy Wood’s analysis of collapse time is fundamentally flawed because she assumes that every successive acceleration is reduced to zero (dropping each ball at the instant of collision with each succeeding floor).  A more realistic assumption would be be that each successive acceleration is reduced by decreasing increments, so that the aggregate collapse time is approximately 11 to 15 seconds.

Secondly, the squibs are more likely the result of periodic expulsions of dust and debris through the windows than explosive demolitions.  Examination of the evidence reveals that each successive set of “squibs” are expelled further from the side of the building as the collapse travels periodically toward the base of the building, which implies that the force of compression increases with the mass of the structure which creates the compression.  A controlled demolition will produce uniform compressions, regardless of their distance from the ground.

Finally, Jones’ demonstration of pouring molten aluminum over a rusted steel beam is misleading.  Aluminum reacts explosively with crushed ferrous oxide and concrete because the surface area of the crushed materials is dramatically increased and provides a much greater chance of explosive reaction.  In fact, it’s very likely that the chain of collapse was initiated by explosive contact of the molten aluminum airframe with the crushed concrete, gypsum and rusted steel created by the collision of the jetliner with the WTC and the subsequent firestorm which melted the airframe and exposed the contents of the impacted area.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 16, 2006 at 1:05 AM

Interesting theory, Major, one I’d heard before, although to be honest, I’d forgotten about it.

“It is indeed ironic that the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has prompted many 9/11 researchers to reach the erroneous conclusion that deliberately placed thermite “cutter charges” must have been used to bring down these buildings. The findings outlined in this article show the underlying reasons for this misconception. Simply put, thermite-induced reactions were largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City—but the fatal damage was not from deliberately planted thermite charges. Molten aluminum was the culprit, and the true terrorist!”

It may very well have been a contributing factor, although the photographic evidence of sagging trusses, and the (presumed) resulting bowing inward of the exterior columns in the proper orientation to the trusses offers substantial proof of this also being a factor.

I guess you’re right.  The question of who, or it would seem now more like what is” directly responsible for destroying the World Trade Center is still a debatable topic and that’s the purpose of this thread.”

My bad.

My apologies to Professor Jones.  His method of galvanizing interest in his paper, by the use of the old tried and true who-done-it thriller is nothing short of brilliant.  Right down to his now obviously feigned dogged determination to debunk the aluminum induced thermite reaction theory, which he no doubt intended on revealing himself at a later date, ala Tootsie.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 16, 2006 at 2:29 AM

Diggins,

Was this a reply to myquestion?

Whattheheck
———————————
Are you saying what a fireman said is

Posted by whattheheck on Jul 16, 2006 at 5:09 AM

“Interesting theory, Major, one I’d heard before, ...”

You didn’t “hear” it.  You read it.  Just like I did.

“My bad.”

No hay problemo.  Just donate the million dollars to ITT.

“Belief is a force.  It’s a weak force, by comparison with gravity; when it comes to moving mountains, gravity wins every time.”

-Terry Pratchett, Pyramids, Harper Torch, 1989,  p. 202.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 16, 2006 at 7:36 AM

chad,

I don’t take in on faith that the analysis by Bazant is correct, I trust it and rely on it because he is an expert and a professional in the field of structural engineering.  Even though I don’t understand the formulas and how they’re related, I do understand his overriding point, which is obviously based upon those formulas, most of which I’m quite confident are used to design structures in the first place.

And that point is:  Once the weight of the upper block was loosed upon the lower, by whatever exact mechanism, global collapse was inevitable due to the overwhelming force exerted by the upper block.  The collapse time was very close to freefall, at least according to lay standards, and there is nothing unusual or surprising about it.

When I get aboard an airliner, I don’t rely merely on faith that I’m going to make it to my destination alive.  I rely upon the knowledge that the pilot is an extremely experienced professional who knows exactly how to get that plane from A to B and has done so many times in the past.  I rely upon the professionals who designed the plane, tested it, and perfected it, no doubt using equally complicated and confusing formulas as Bazant.  I don’t need to know what these people know in order to know that I’ll be alright.

I’ve addressed multitudes of Rabbit’s “information” both here and on previous threads.  I’ve found virtually all of it to be based on either unreliable/dishonest sources, or false premises.

For example, Christopher Bollyn arrives at this interpretation:

Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying, “Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged:

The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses, Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”

of this editorial by Manning:

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory. — Fire Engineering Magazine, Dec. 2001 (before any detailed investigations had even begun.)

Incidentally, Bollyn is cited as a source in Steven Jones’ paper.

Incidentally, Bollyn here is writing in a holocaust denial/revisionist publication—“American Free Press”.

Incidentally, Jones has not as yet referenced Bazant’s recent paper, which basically confirmed his own early 2002 analysis, which was done without complete information.

I’m sure in Jones’ next “version”, it will be addressed.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 16, 2006 at 10:22 AM

that’s great, Natalie. 

now, please explain how fire from jet fuel, which is pure kerosene and cannot reach the temperature needed to melt the steel (as already pointed out by rabbit), still managed to melt the steel.  and, since you seem to have forgotten that i mentioned this above, how come no one has come forward and made the simple proof of your theory and claimed the million dollars. 

as someone trying to follow this as objectively as possible, i would love to have answers to both of these questions.  they have been repeatedly ignored while you guys argue over the exact meaning of what the firefighters and building owner were saying.  can anyone explain either of these things to me. 

also, all these people have asked is that there be an independent investigation of this event.  as far as i am concerned, there are more than enough glaring inconsistencies mentioned above to warrant further (or different) investigation.  how we go about establishing such an independent investigation is an entirely different matter.

Posted by chad on Jul 16, 2006 at 1:48 PM

You people really are idiots, aren’t you?  Keep spouting your inane conspiracy theories and speculations, it’s obvious you didn’t even think about Ms. Allen’s column, you could only go into knee jerk paranoia at the thought of your whole wing nut paradigm being undermined.  Keep up the lunacy though; Bush and co. love you for it and the rest of the population doesn’t take anything else you seriously because of it.  Keep wasting your energy and time on hammering others over the head with this and keeping your smug feeling of being superior because others don’t know what you do and you can look down your elitist noses at those who aren’t as “smart” as you.

What idiots.  If this is what the left has been reduced to, God help us.  Even Chomsky considers you people to be loony.

Posted by didderbops on Jul 16, 2006 at 4:18 PM

didderbops

did you bother to look at any of the evidence presented here from either side?  neither of these two theories are insane, reasonable arguments are being made by both sides. 

by ‘the rest of the population’ do you mean the 42% that don’t believe the governments story?  that’s a pretty significant minority for something that you claim is so outrageous.  that’s almost as many idiots as voted for bush.

if you’d like to be taken the least bit seriously please write something worth reading.  at the very least spare us your hypocrisy.  you can’t accuse these people of having a ‘smug feeling of being superior’  then turn around and refernece Chomsky like he’s an old friend of yours. 

if you don’t have anything relevant to say, kindly shut up.  if you do decide to make any more comments, though, do feel free to show us exactly where your good buddy Norm refers to these peolpe as ‘loonies’.

Posted by chad on Jul 16, 2006 at 4:38 PM