9/11 conspiracy theorists gather at LA conference
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - They wore T-shirts asking “What Really Happened?,” snapped up DVDs titled “9/11; The Great Illusion,” and cheered as physicists, philosophers and terrorism experts decried the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks that shook America to its core. Some 1,200 people gathered at a Los Angeles hotel on the weekend for what organizers billed as the largest conference on the plethora of conspiracy theories that see the 2001 attacks on Washington and New York as, at best, official negligence, and at worst an orchestrated U.S. attempt to incite world war.
I’ve been made aware of late of just how prevalent and numerous 9.11 conspiracy theories are these days. Of course, by calling them “conspiracy theories”, I in no way mean to imply that I dismiss these theories out of hand. I’m just not altogether certain what to make of them.
As I understand…and someone, ANYONE, please correct me if I’m wrong here…the basic premise behind the “conspiracy theories” is that there is no way that two airliners could have brought down New York’s Twin Towers by themselves. Surely, there must have been some sort of coordinated effort to assist the terrorists in bringing down the towers…and the only organization with the wherewithal and the capability to mount such a huge and secret operation is our own federal government.
I would certainly agree that there are a lot more questions than answers, but considering the scope of the attacks and the end result, that’s understandable. With the collapse of both towers, most anything that could have served as evidence was likely vaporized under thousands of tons of concrete and steel- not to mention the burning jet fuel.
Nonetheless, does the lack of answers to the myriad questions being asked represent an insidious government conspiracy…or merely an event whose scope and magnitude exceed our flawed human ability to comprehend and understand it?
Don’t get me wrong; I detest Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader and his evil band of minions and thugs as much as anyone on the Left is capable of. Nonetheless, I find it impossible to wrap my head around even the possibility that our government might have participated to even the smallest degree in the 9.11 attacks. To think that the American government could be implicated, whether via omission or commission, is simply more than I can process. The fact that there is a lack of solid evidence indicating even the minimal possibility that this sort of thing might have taken place isn’t helping to convince me.
“There are so many prominent people who are incredibly well-respected who have stated that the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job,” syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones told a news conference.
“There are hundreds of smoking guns that people need to be made aware of,” said Jones, calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and charging that mainstream media had been slow to cover the growing movement of 9/11 skeptics.
The “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” conference comprised two days of seminars, video presentations and talks by groups including “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” www.infowars.com and an appearance by actor Charlie Sheen.
Most are convinced the U.S. military command “stood down” on the day of the attack, that the hijackers were trained at American military bases, and that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of a series of controlled explosions set before they were hit by two hijacked planes.
There are so many holes in these arguments that I don’t even know where to begin…and yet I can understand where the speculation comes from. 9.11 represented an attack so vicious, so difficult to comprehend, that it seems to defy rational, reasonable explanation. And what rushes in to fill a vaccuum?? Rumor, inuendo, and the random, stray fact or two.
Suggested motives range from expected benefits for U.S. arms and oil conglomerates to revolutionary plans for a new world order headed by the United States.
The theories, derided by critics as wild and far-fetched, have mostly been confined to the Internet, talk radio and the alternative press.
Yes, it’s true that an 2004 Zogby poll revealed that 49% of New York residents feel that the American government had prior knowledge of the 9.11 attacks and failed to act. What that poll seems not to address, though, is whether that prior knowledge and the accompanying inaction is the result of a vile conspiracy or simple and unfathomable ignorance and incompetence. Criminal or Stupid? I suppose it depends on what one is disposed to believe.
In the absence of hard evidence, I’m going to have to come down on the side of “Stupid”. Call me naive, but I just cannot wrap my pointy li’l haid around the idea that Americans would willingly participate in the murder of 3,000 innocent American civilians in order to provoke a world war. Perhaps it’s just that I’m still furiously clinging to what little faith in humanity I still have left, but until I see some hard, convincing evidence to the contrary, “Stupid” prevails.
Several months ago I was surfing randomly and stumbled across inforwars.com. I ended up spending most of a Sunday reading there and at other conspiracy theory sites. It's very entertaining stuff (if you like Sci-Fi) and it's clear that these folks are sincere, and dead serious.
One of the more entertaining theories has the Pentagon being hit by a guided missile, aircraft wreckage being trucked in after the fact, and eyewitnesses being brainwashed by a secret government agency. The real Flight 77 (along with its passengers) was allegedly divirted offshore and destroyed.
Naturally, there are numerous sub-theories that are mutually exclusive. For example, some theorists claim that the WTC towers' infrastructure was weakened prior to the attacks, while others insist multiple explosives were detonated in a controlled fashion in the seconds preceeding the collapes. The latter group has video/audio evidence that they claim proves thier theory.
Despite the dissention, there are two basic beliefs held by the vast majority of the conspiracy theorists:
Sound familiar? ;-)
Jack
Like you, "I can't wrap my head" around the idea of Americans being complicit in the events of Sept. 11th 2001. Were this idea to be proven.... I'd have to renounce my membership in the human race....
I continue to believe that the adminsitration was adequately warned about possible attacks involving airliners.....and through incompeence and stupidity...this info was ignored.
Robert
Jack:
I promised I wouldn't bother you with this again, but you brought it up on your site. PLEASE view the video "Loose Change 2nd Edition". The official version of 9/11 cannot possibly be true because it violates so many fundamental laws of physics. Hundreds of esteemed U.S. scientists, engineers, and physicists are going on record right now with this information: All three WTC towers fell at near "free fall" speed, i.e. the speed of matter in a vacuum. Countless audio tapes, video tapes and SEISMIC evidence of additional explosions are in the public record, and cannot have been altered. The only way for matter to fall at that rate is to remove all structural integrity of 110 stories of concrete and steel, AND THE VERY AIR THAT IS PRESENT IN THE ATMOSHPERE> I.E. A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (IMPLOSION). Yes, wrap your head around it, we are dead serious, and have the data to prove it. Thousands of NY'ers, including your friend Tim, were killed by these planned implosions. LOOK AT THE MATERIAL I SENT YOU. There are hundreds of other pieces of evidence we have, but the law of gravity ought to be one you can get your head around today. My advice: first, assimilate the science, then deal with the ethical considerations it presents.
I guess I just can't stop. On "Loose Change 2nd Edition", you'll see photographs of Pentagon officials looking at 757 crash debris on a model of the Pentagon, TWO years before the attacks. You will also see satellite photos of a white line painted on the Pentagon lawn in the exact trajectory of "flight 77" four days BEFORE THE CRASH. You'll learn through other research that the government's official statement that the missing jets (100 tons each) & trivial amount of crash debris at both Shanksville and the Pentagon (the amount of actual aircraft debris at both sites wouldn't fill two pickups)was that the planes "vaporized" on contact, which would require a terminal velocity of 15 times the speed of sound to cause ANY loss of aluminum. I'll forgo the calculations of the steel and titanium (6 tons) in each of the two engines per plane being vaporized as well, as those metals have a much higher melting point. It's already ludicrous enough. My question to you, how can you believe the official story? You want evididence? Go look at it!
Sorry I ranted, but calling a scholar "stupid" is the ultimate oxymoron. We're anything but. "Stupid" is believing the official story despite a huge body of some of the most intelligent scholars in the United States telling you it cannot be true. We're from Underwriter's Laboratory, MIT, BYU, and University of Minnesota/Duluth. I don't recall many stupid people in our midst.
Craniac, I truly respect both your intellect and your opinion. If you post a link to "Loose Change 2nd Edition" I will visit it, and will do so with an open mind.
Having visited many such sites alreday, I do have a question. If Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, what happened to the Boeing 757, its crew and passengers?
Craniac...I certainly meant no disrespect, and I used "stupid" only to describe my opinion of the government's "simple and unfathomable ignorance and incompetence". I still believe...well, I'm not sure what I believe, really. While I can't manage to wrap my head around any "conspiracy theory", I also cannot dismiss it out of hand. Color me confused, I guess. I just don't know how deeply I want to dig.
bob:
please visit www.st911.org which is "scholars for the truth". You will find the loose change video mid way down on the left side of links. You may either watch it from there, or download it. For a shorter, but more brutal, essay, click on "MIT engineer explains controlled demolition" on the same left side.
I have no explanation for the actual demise of the people on the airplanes. You will learn more than you want to know about the real flight 93, which very likely landed in Cleveland, on Loose Change. Insiders who did not enjoy their mission that day have leaked to our side that the cost of this operation was explained to them to be viewed as "a single day of highway deaths in the U.S." All I know is that the empirical data cannot support a 757 heavy at the Pentagon, and conflicting (i.e., non 757) aircraft remnants were documented at that scene, further abolishing the 757 case.
physics911 is another compelling site. Both of these are highly scientific based sites, which mean the most right now.
And to both, Jack, and bob, I once again implore you to take this in two swipes. You must gain absolute confidence in the science, which I promise you will, then together I suggest we tackle the ethical issue, which by default of the first knowledge, is monumental to all humankind. Jack, you must dig. We all must.
And to Jack, I apologize for invoking your friend Tim in this. As an aside, I lost friends in a Northwest Airlines crash in 1987, Detroit to Phoenix. This was my first connection to 9/11, if you will. I remember vividly the massive debris field and scorched earth when this jetliner (A DC9), hit a fixed object (an interstate overpass in metro Detroit. In fact Jack, since you and I have an e-mail link, I'm going to send you a photo of that crash. You might consider posting it on the site as "What really happens when jets hit fixed objects"
Watch your inbox.
Thanks. Please cc me: landoc(at)swbell.net
craniac: The most simple and basic problem I have with your theory is the same as my first objection to the theory that the US Astronauts didn't actually land on the moon in 1969. That is, the number of people, amount of money and amount of materials, coordination, communication, and training that would surely be needed for such a scheme leads me to believe that there would be a single person, a single document, money trail, intercepted phone call, something to latch on to.
Instead, the theory finds foundation on a few loose-ends and physical improbabilities that have been finely-tuned to fit a certain worldview. If you are correct, along with the few scientists who believe what you do, why are there so many thousands upon thousands of other scientists who vehemently disagree with your position? If the "fundamental laws of physics" were defied, don't you think some of the esteemed physics faculty at, say, MIT would want to look into this oddity?
Adam:
Again, I can't answer every question. I can tell you the amount of thermite needed to bring down the WTC 1 and 2 could have been carried by ten men in two trips. Virtually every major and private video of the collapses of these towers show blatant "squibs", the hallmark of an implosion. No other known phenomenon on earth causes them, nor the pyroclastic flows of debris from the implosion. I can also tell you that I have doubts about the Apollo business, but that didn't cause the murder of our citizens. The Law of Gravity is not a loose end, Adam. This is tenth grade science, for the record. And I have yet to meet a scientist that can argue with our posture, most just are taking the silent "I wish you hadn't told me this" approach. They, like the rest of the sheeple, bought the official story and went on with their lives. Those of us that were troubled by the "facts" put a pencil to the events and found giant lies, that don't require "fine-tuned" data to disprove. And, yes, BYU is fully behind all of our research, so long as it is peer reveiwed. (See, WE have laws we never violate). And there is a money trail a mile wide if you'd view the evidence.
Craniacs 9/11 challenge for the 4th of July weekend:
Please find a factual record of any other planes in history "vaporizing" on contact.
Hint: Even the Challenger and Columbia "aircraft", left substantial debris fields. Challenger did so in the midst of a catyclismic explosion involving exotic rocket fuel. Think jet fuel sounds exotic? "Jet A" as it's known, is refined Kerosene. It's flammable, but not explosive. It also burns much too cool to melt aluminum. The gas in your car is more exotic.
There might be those of you who like their science to be more hands on. Fine, the next part is for you: Take a wheelbarrow and clean the inside well (we don't want anything to taint the experiment. Throw in a bunch of pop cans or beer cans, some aluminum window trim, some tin foil wads, and a screen door handle. You get my drift. Douse with Kerosene and light. Repeat for the Fourth of July weekend as needed. Please post your results here next week.
God bless us all,
Craniac
Okay, I have had some feedback that people want to see and hear the supplemental explosions at WTC 1,2 and 7 for themselves. Go to www.reopen911.org and view "911 eyewitness". I just became aware of this footage in recent days, all very credibly shot from the opposing viewpoint (Hoboken,NJ) of virtually all other known footage. Watch the white explosion clouds erupt from the ground floors of the towers (weakening/severing the core columns before the implosive charges went off), which are corroborated by sonic thuds recorded by the same film. Watch the horrific sight of the core column "spire" at the time of the second tower's implosion, (the spire which should have remained standing long after the event according to the official "pancake theory"). It is poised some 50-70 stories in the air, then within 1-2 seconds, pieces of it plummet away, trailing the telltale signs of explosions along their seams as ghastly contrails follow them down. Please explain some other mechanism that would account for pulverized computers, office products, elevator shafts, concrete, and carpeting drifting into New Jersey in a pyroclastic cloud. Only Explosives, not just explosions, render such matter into particulate size pieces that can drift through the air. Folks, I'm just scratching the surface of the body of evidence we have. Please take the time to learn it.
I watched Loose Change 2 last night. While it does a good job of highlighting a lot of strange happenings, I don't think it does a good job of explaining the how and why of it all. For example, they point to nebulous loose ends such as shorts on AA's stock and the connections between the people who own the trade centers and the insurance company, but that is only part of the picture. The money trail is not "a mile wide." Why would people rich, well-connected, and smart enough to pull this off risk blowing the whole thing over a couple million worth of put orders on stocks? Isn't that a little obvious? What makes this an even more outlandish claim is the further claim that billions were at stake in the insurance fraud scheme allegedly being run by the rich and powerful. If there really were billions at stake, why worry with a couple extra million?
Moreover, I don't see any possible motive that could supercede the overwhelming chance of being caught red-handed. Most murders in the United States are solved. Mass murders that claim 3,000 lives and requires complicity, money, and access from literally hundreds of people simply can't stay secret long. Invade Iraq? Probably could have done it anyway. Invade Afghanistan? Definately could have done it anyway.
Even if that's not true, was it necessary to destroy 3 buildings, several airplaines, and 3,000 people to get it done? Probably not. Why not just sink a Navy Destroyer? Plant a bomb in the WTC again?
Why was WTC7 destroyed? The people in power would HAVE to know how obvious it would look, so why do it? Surely the documents contained within could have been destroyed in a handy (and far more believable) fire?
If a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then what did? None of the eyewitnesses report seeing a missle, at least not ones interviewed for the documentary. All of them report seeing a plane of one kind or another. In fact, the documentary itself waivers on this issue, at one point clearly implying that a cruise missile did the damage, while at other times clearly implying that it was a government aircraft. Which was it? Seems to me there are only two options: 1) It was a missile and every single eye-witness is wrong, or 2) It was a plane of some kind that left behind very few traces, or "vaporized" as they say. Problem is, either way the documentary is lying to the viewer.
With regard to the "squibs," are you aware of the MASSIVE amount of material contained within the world trade centers that would have been falling down to lower floors AHEAD OF THE SHELL OF THE BULIDING and popping debris out of the shattering windows? How on earth is this not consistent with what is seen in the videos? Additionally, the comparison footage shown in the documentary shows CLEARLY EVIDENT, EXTREMELY BRIGHT flashes given off by squibs, which are inarguably not present in the WTC footage. How did this happen?
Further review of the implosion theory shows how specious the filmmaker's assumptions are. Are we to believe that a huge, well known demolition company was contracted by the government to destroy two world-famous buildings full of people, and not a SINGLE GODDAMN PERSON INVOLVED said "hey, why not just blow it up and have them fall on their side or tilt a little?" Doesn't having them implode exactly like, oh, an implosion, make things look a little suspicious? Wouldn't having them fall to the side and crush WTC7 have made more sense from their perspective?
Your arguments about Challenger and Columbia are not good comparisions with regard to aircraft "vaporization." Challenger was connected to the external fuel tank and SRBs by relatively weak connections DESIGNED TO BE BROKEN. The force of the exploding SRB would certainly be enough to free the orbiter from these moorings and send it in freefall to the ocean, which is in fact exactly what happened. Moreover, these objects exploded in open air, which disperses the material immediately. This means that the material is not exposed to extreme force, temperature, or pressure for more than a split second, ensuring the survival of some material. I agree that the lack of wreakage at both the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania sites is odd, but making the claims you make with the only reasoning being "well it's never happened before..." is not sound argument. Lots of things that have never happened before happen all the time. This should not be shocking news.
Additionally, I don't believe two towers the size of the trade center have collapsed on themselves before after being struck at high speed by huge aircraft. How can you categorically deny that previously unknown, unexplained, or poorly-understood physical and chemical interactions can take place in such an unprecedented environment?
I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying the documentary is at least somewhat misleading and simplistic. It presents only once side of the evidence, and makes absolutely no self-critical claims.
Finally, if you don't believe that US Astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, you are absolutely beyond hope and I can't believe I just typed this all out.
PS - The white plane shown flying over DC is perhaps the most easily explained bit of this whole fiasco. I am 99.999% sure it was an Air Force E-4B, pictured here: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/factsheet/e_4b.jpg
The Air Force operates 4 of these, designed to be airborne command centers for the President and vital National Security staff in the event of a cataclysmic emergency. Read more about them here: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=99
Adam:
The issue I have with Apollo has to do with the Van Allen radiation belts. The tinfoil bucket those guys rode in wouldn't have kept them from getting cooked alive. But I don't mind a little "Patriotic Science", as long as it doesn't involve murder. Let's drop Apollo by mutual agreement. I don't care if it happened or not, and it's not pivotal to our discord here.
So, please, Adam explain the following: Newton's law of falling bodies allows only two tragectories in a building collapse: Down, and out (but only in combination with down). Please provide some other mechanism besides explosives to account for debris and strucutral steel being ejected from WTC 1 & 2 at +/-300 ft. vertical and +/- 600 ft. horizontal. All measurements taken from photos and documents in the public record. You can say it's "the stuff in the office exploding", as most of the beer-belly crowd do, but you only prove my point. The only things in a class "A" high rise are office products, UL rated devices, carpet, gypsum, and fireproofed steel. None of which are explosive. Nothing on the jet aircraft is explosive either, so that one's out too.
You have taken the tact of many doubters, Adam. You can point out that the white plane may be a known item, or any other little detail item you chose to latch on to. So what, answer the science questions! I didn't write that movie, and I don't agree with everything in it. But it's got a lot of smoking guns in it which you carefully avoided. I would point out that our case is thousands of times stronger than the other side, even with a few conflicting details.
You can argue with a straight face that the lack of wreckage at Pentagon and Shanksville are because "this" never happened before? What, no plane has ever crashed into a solid object or dirt before? Are you nuts? FIND ANY OTHER PLANE THAT VAPORIZED ON CONTACT> FIND ANY OTHER BUILDING THAT COLLAPSED FASTER THAN GRAVITY THAT WAS NOT BEING IMPLODED> EXPLAIN HOW WE CAN SCRAMBLE 7 F-16'S (A single, then three pairs) to chase down Payne Stewart's Lear Jet in 1999, and we can't catch Flts. 93 and 77, for EIGHTY MINUTES after the WTC towers were clearly not an accident. I have no hope for you either, but I will push this cause until I am no longer able. I don't need to convine everybody, and I'll give up on anyone that won't address the science.
Oh, and Adam:
Thanks for making another of my arguments for me. If that is an Air Force E4-B airborne command center, and public record shows Bush at an elementary school in Florida, and Norman Maneta's testimony has Dick Cheney in a bunker at the Pentagon, who's in the friggin' plane, and WHAT are they "commanding", and from restricted airspace, no less?
Adam:
And as for "WTC looked so much like a Planned Implosion it couldn't be one", I'll try that the next time I get pulled over for speeding. "I looked so much like I was going 80 . . ."
It looked so much like a planned implosion because it was. The people that did it only know how to do it "right", so to speak. Why do you think Controlled Demolition, Inc. held exclusive rights to process the WTC sites after the implosions? Even FEMA had to ask their permission to enter, which was often delayed for days and/or hours at a time.
And as for the intelligence of our "elected" President, he sat and read "My Pet Goat" even after being informed of the second impact at the WTC South Tower. If anyone can watch that agonizing scene in real time, and not ask for an impeachment, you are beyond my comprehension. You can view that chasm in our leadership on "Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime".
And why weren't detonation flashes noted at WTC site? Some WERE documented and testified to by NYFD personnel, who now are under a gag order. And because in all publically announced implosions, all office contents and window glass are removed prior to the event, as was not the case at WTC/2001.
And the "It's never happened before", well, you must have been in the can when they told you about the B-25 Mitchell which crashed into the Empire State Building in the 1940's. (Loose Change 2nd). Considerable damage, burned a lot longer, burnt Aviation Gas!(much hotter),not Kerosene, no collapse. Still standing to this day.
And, even if a jetliner has never hit a locomotive head on, a physicist can tell you with a great degree of certainty what the end result will be. And all of that matter will be subject to Newton's laws, just the same as the WTC buildings. You don't get a day pass from reality, no matter how tragic the event. Which buildings, by the way, were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a 707. While not identical to a 757, the 600% redundancy of the structures wasn't even close to taxed by either impact. I.E> over 230 perimiter columns, maximum of 45 compromised by the aircraft. 47 Core Columns (which were ALL missing in the 9/11 Commision study and that tripe on NOVA), max loss of 4-6 each building> You're not even in the same area code as "failure" rate.
I can go on for days and days with the evidence. No logical scholar can disagree. Please join my fight, or at least accept my right as an American to present our evidence to the Nation at large.
Hmm...something tells me you two aren't going to meet in the middle on this one.... ;p)
Jack:
It's Science vs. Rhetoric. We'll loose Adam, he can't hang in here much longer.
God Bless.
Craniac
So there you have it. Just as some of you are amazed that I can be so convinced of my beliefs of the events of that day, I am amazed that some hang on to the "Official Version".
Which by the way, a version to us that is so totally improbable, we call it the "Real Conspiracy" theory. I know that the smartest people I know (aside from myself) have me completely convinced of the explosives at WTC. And as for the rest of the scientific community, most of them never looked at the "drop times" of the structures, to me the greatest smoking gun of all. Ask them to put a pencil to that calculation (+/- 10.5 sec=t 1630 ft=dist, formula 32 ft per sec. per sec. squared) and come up with any other methodology for matter to travel at that rate. There simply is none. None other than "Implosion".
Please provide some other mechanism besides explosives to account for debris and strucutral steel being ejected from WTC 1 & 2 at +/-300 ft. vertical and +/- 600 ft. horizontal. . .You can say itÔøΩs ÔøΩthe stuff in the office explodingÔøΩ, as most of the beer-belly crowd do
1) The mechanism that propels objects up and out of the building is known as "air." When high volumes of air are pushed out of windows after being compressed between the collapse of two concrete floors, they create vorticies which can propel particulate matter and small debris UP. This DOES NOT violate the law of falling bodies. If you are going to call me an idiot, you might want to read up on the law you repeatedly cite, and you will see that it applies only "in the absence of air." Source here: http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/gravity.html and all over the internet.
2) I like how you insult the people who disagree with you, and then accuse me of using "rhetoric" instead of "science."
You have taken the tact of many doubters, Adam. You can point out that the white plane may be a known item, or any other little detail item you chose to latch on to. So what, answer the science questions! I didnÔøΩt write that movie, and I donÔøΩt agree with everything in it. But itÔøΩs got a lot of smoking guns in it which you carefully avoided. I would point out that our case is thousands of times stronger than the other side, even with a few conflicting details.
You have made zero arguments here. All of your arugments are based on the presumed validity of the claims in the documentary you have cited. How is demonstrating the dubiousness of some of these claims "carefully avoiding" the arguments you hvae made? Which science questions would you like me to answer?
You can argue with a straight face that the lack of wreckage at Pentagon and Shanksville are because ÔøΩthisÔøΩ never happened before? What, no plane has ever crashed into a solid object or dirt before? Are you nuts?
You are misreading my argument. I did not claim that the lack of wreakage is BECAUSE it hasn't happened before, but rather, the fact that certain things have not happened before is NOT proof that they cannot happen. I don't understand how that was unclear. Moreover, I conceeded that the lack of wreakage is odd, however, and absolutely did not hand-waive away your claims. You, on the other hand, fail to answer the question of what could have possibly caused the damage at the pentagon that could be universally identified as a relatively large aircraft by eyewitnesses. So does the documentary. Odd.
FIND ANY OTHER BUILDING THAT COLLAPSED FASTER THAN GRAVITY THAT WAS NOT BEING IMPLODED
The buildings did not "collapse faster than gravity," not even the documentary makes that claim. In fact, it shows that they collapsed slightly slower than they would have if there were in free-fall in a vacuum, which is exactly what you would expect from a collapsing building that had been structurally damaged.
EXPLAIN HOW WE CAN SCRAMBLE 7 F-16ÔøΩS (A single, then three pairs) to chase down Payne StewartÔøΩs Lear Jet in 1999, and we canÔøΩt catch Flts. 93 and 77, for EIGHTY MINUTES after the WTC towers were clearly not an accident.
The documentary points out that there were only a few F-16s in the entire United States, and the video evidence shows them in the vicinity of New York and Washington, DC. Where are the F-16s supposed to come from to intercept? Or is the documentary lying about the number of planes available to intercept?
If that is an Air Force E4-B airborne command center, and public record shows Bush at an elementary school in Florida, and Norman ManetaÔøΩs testimony has Dick Cheney in a bunker at the Pentagon, whoÔøΩs in the frigginÔøΩ plane, and WHAT are they ÔøΩcommandingÔøΩ, and from restricted airspace, no less?
1) As a matter of protocol, the national security council is taken into the E4-Bs. Regardless, there is no reason the planes would have to have people on them at all. I find it highly likely that policy dictates that planes vital to the national security strategy not sit idle on a tarmac while the country is under attack.
2) I find it funny that you suggest that E4-Bs shouldn't be in "restricted airspace." They are highly classified Air Force aircraft, and can fly wherever they want.
It looked so much like a planned implosion because it was. The people that did it only know how to do it ÔøΩrightÔøΩ, so to speak. Why do you think Controlled Demolition, Inc. held exclusive rights to process the WTC sites after the implosions?
1) This is laughable. Blowing up a building is not difficult. I believe with the means available to the "conspirators," I could have blown up the buildings and caused them to fall down. What I COULD NOT have done is controlled how they fall. As the name implies, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INC. employs experts in demolition. Suggesting that they cannot make a building fall down on its side is absolutely stupid.
2) Here is why Controlled Demolition had access to the collapse zone, from their website: "Controlled Demolition IncorporatedÔøΩs (CDI's) international network is prepared to move swiftly to support Loizeaux Group International's (LGI's) response to analysis of structural collapse emergencies, worldwide. Regardless of the cause of collapse, LGI can draw on Controlled Demolition Incorporated's unparalleled database and skilled professionals in structural, strength of materials and design fields to work with local authorities and contractors in stabilizing dynamic conditions and setting the stage for subsequent forensic analysis of the collapse."
And as for the intelligence of our ÔøΩelectedÔøΩ President, he sat and read ÔøΩMy Pet GoatÔøΩ even after being informed of the second impact at the WTC South Tower. If anyone can watch that agonizing scene in real time, and not ask for an impeachment, you are beyond my comprehension. You can view that chasm in our leadership on ÔøΩEverybodyÔøΩs Gotta Learn SometimeÔøΩ.
I agree that Bush is an idiot. I voted against him twice, and would love to see him impeached. That said, suggesting that President Bush did this alone, without help, consultation, outside money, power, and influence, is incredibly stupid. You expect me to believe that THE WHOLE TIME THIS WAS PLANNED, ORGANIZED, AND EXECUTED, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED SAID "Hey, don't you think having them imploded would look pretty obvious on national television?" Your response to this extremely basic argument is inadequate. You expect me to believe that they ARE smart enough to pull this off but NOT smart enough to realize that they will have to get away with it. You should be able to see the flaw in reasoning here.
And why werenÔøΩt detonation flashes noted at WTC site? Some WERE documented and testified to by NYFD personnel, who now are under a gag order.
You're right, there are NO POSSIBLE alternate explanations that make much more sense in light of the weight of the evidence. Fire alarms, exploding light bulbs, sun reflection from windows, spotlights, flashlights, fires, none of these could possibly explain a few random flashes seen BY ONLY SOME of the people on scene.
And the ÔøΩItÔøΩs never happened beforeÔøΩ, well, you must have been in the can when they told you about the B-25 Mitchell which crashed into the Empire State Building in the 1940ÔøΩs. (Loose Change 2nd). Considerable damage, burned a lot longer, burnt Aviation Gas!(much hotter),not Kerosene, no collapse. Still standing to this day.
I wasn't "in a can." These circumstances are not even remotely similar. A 757 is much larger, heaver, and more well constructed than a B-25. The planes that struck the WTC were travelling faster, and were nearly fully fuled. In contrast, the B-25's final destination was New Jersey, and it was circling in search of the airport, likely at a fairly slow speed, and at a relatively low fuel level. Moreover, the fire was fully extinguished in 40 minutes in the Empire State Building, while allowed to burn freely in the WTC for over an hour.
ItÔøΩs Science vs. Rhetoric. WeÔøΩll loose Adam, he canÔøΩt hang in here much longer.
Your "scientific" claims are refuted by a vast majority of well-known and well-respected scientists. My "rhetoric" points to reasons why intellegent, powerful, rich people would (1) Try this in the first place, and (2) Fail to make it look more random. You respond to none of these arugments and instead scream from the rooftops about your "science." Quite honestly, I don't give a damn if you think the collapse of the towers was near impossible. No scientist or engineer in the world will tell you that these events are straight up not possible, and until you can articulate a reason why your claims should carry the benefit of the doubt (motive would be a good start), then I'm sorry, all the "science" spit at me from angsty 20-somethings on a pseudo-documentary that cites wikipedia and AFP in the world won't convince me.
Please join my fight, or at least accept my right as an American to present our evidence to the Nation at large.
When did I not accept your right? If I didn't accept your right, would I have even cared about all the "evidence" you've obviously spent hours typing out for me? I don't give a shit if you belive this, feel free to stand on the rooftops or give a national radio address. This is just ridiculous persecution complex, and it's funny.
I'll call this essay "craniac Puts a Pencil to Pancake Collapse Theory". You've by now read me to be making a big deal of the rate of fall of the towers. The official explanation of the collapse is known as the "Pancake Collapse Theory", which has a sequential, mechanical failure of all the floors at the two WTC towers. As an aside, there is no offical theory for the collapse of WTC 7. They won't touch that pig. So, let's take a look at that "pancake" theory. You have a 110 story building that is built in equal thirds, divided by two sky lobbies, neatly making three pieces to deal with here. If you could still be there, you'd be looking at one of the largest and most well constructed office buildings ever built. Say you're on the top floor, surrounded by 230 perimiter columns, and further protected by 47 box columns at the core. You're standing on a steel framed floor that is so strong, the concrete on it is considered to be a "flooring" product by the engineers that designed it. Imagine all of that yielding way in just one second. About the time it takes you to say the word "smack". So, one floor has just collapsed. Newton's Law of the Conservation is now at play, so let's look at it:
Two taxi cabs are on a roadway. One, traveling 60 mph, crashes into a stationary taxi. The car that was traveling slows dramatically, and the other speeds up. BOTH cannot speed up. This would be known as a "stutter" effect in a building collapse. We've seen it, and the laws of Physics knew it would be there. So, for the first 33 floors, let's assume one floor per second. Now, the mass is traveling well. In the time it takes you to say the word "pop", I'll give you two floors per second for the next third. Keep in mind, the building is getting progressivly stronger. The 47 box columns the were 4mm at top, are on their way to becoming 100mm monoliths (that's four inch thick steel, gang)at the bottom. Now, even though the building is horribly well built here near the bottom, I've going to give you 3 floors per second on the last third. Just like the teeth of a zipper. Imagine all of that massive steel, hi-grade concrete, all of the elevator shafts, heating ducts and electrical conduit, just going "poof" at that rate. SO, where are we?
60.5 seconds. I don't care, cut all my numbers in half, and have the fastest mechanical collapse of a building on record. Where are you?
30.25 seconds.
What was the actual "drop rate" of the WTC Towers? Towers 1 & 2 were approximately:
10.5 seconds. A grand piano dropped in a vacuum covers that distance in 9 seconds flat.
WTC 7? Less that six seconds. It actually beats matter in a vacuum to the deck.
The near instantaneous loss of all structural integrity of every single bearing piece of those structures, along with the removal of the very air in the atmosphere, is the only mechanism on Earth that allows it. This is fundamental observation which cannot be challenged.
See how bad the science is in the official report?
Your argument ignores fact. The several "bangs" heard just before the implosion were the floors in the middle/top of the building rapidly collapsing onto one-another. This created a strucutural dead zone in the building that propogated down the building, causing the plumes of dust and debris that are seen rapidly exiting the building some 10-30 floors ahead of the top. As these floors give way, one by one, the top of the building can no longer be supported and begins to free fall, catching up to the pancaking floors near the bottom of the tower. Here is an illustration that I made just for you:
http://img326.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc7vj.png
Explain how this is not scientifically possible.
The Achille's Heel by Craig T. Furlong
This is not rocket science. ALL of 9/11 can be synthesized down to one thing: WTC7. (Please do not misunderstand, I do not discount the overwhelming preponderance of other damning evidence that implicates the US Government; I simply state it is not needed "to get the ball rolling" and finally bring down their house of cards.)
WTC7 is their Achille's Heel. A quick view of any one of the many videos available on the internet exposes a glaring, critical question to all of the Government's explanations of what happened that day. There IS something rotten in Denmark.
WTC7.
WTC7 collapsed falling into its own footprint with all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. That's because it WAS a CLASSIC, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
Anyone who says otherwise is either
(1) ignorant, or
(2) got his/her head so deep in the sand they are basically those of choice (1), or
(3) he/she is a coward to the truth [aka cognitive dissonance], or finally
(4) he/she is in league with the bad guys. (These are the only possible, logical choices.)
It was a controlled demolition...
It was not hit by an airplane...
Fire has never in history been the cause for a large-scale building to collapse (according to the Government, however, this has happened three times; unfortunately, they are referring to September 11, 2001)...
It was practically a government facility (look at the tenant list)...
Prepping a building for a controlled demolition takes at least a minimum 2 weeks to prepare, often longer...
So, how did it implode that day via controlled demolition? I.e., how did they prep the building without being observed (box-cutter wielding jihadists could not have done this)?
Why has the US controlled Media not covered this glaring, critical question AT ALL? (Answer: they want to keep their paychecks and food on the table.)
Why has the US Government and the whitewashing, disreputable 9/11 Commission basically ignored this entire matter by stating they don't know?
(And you can't get them to talk about it, either.)
The perpetrators of 9/11 were not those whom the US Government would have you believe. No, the bad guys were the US Government. They're the ones doing the cover up; after all, the ones usually responsible are the ones doing the cover up.
They had plenty of motive too, but that's another topic.
Their OP didn't run too well, though, with way too many unanswered questions the result.
Especially glaring is their Achille's Heel.
So, if you are honest with yourself, you can not refute this. And when most Americans finally see WTC7 come-tumbling-down, they will also understand.
Then we get these wicked people arrested and charged for murder and treason, and We The People take back America.
Do you like the sound of that?
That was an absolutely terrible display of argument. You set up the opposition using a couple logical fallacies. You present a false dichotomy by outlining a few categories (ignorant, cowardly, or complicit) that your opponents may fall into, and categorically deny that they can belog to any other category when this is obviously not the case.
Moreover, you beg the question by assuming that your conclusion is right, and then make several "arguments" that are tantamount to that same assumption. This is like arguing that we should not lie because we should always tell the truth.
Beyond these technical problems with your argument, you manage to be even worse at changing minds than craniac (who seems to have given up, woe is me) by making argument with absolutely zero evidence. You say "look at the video" and "it collapsed in its own footprint." These are not arguments. Present some evidence that it's not possible for a building to collapse into its own foundation without controlled demolition. Show me what I should watch for in the video footage.
Prepping a building for a controlled demolition takes at least a minimum 2 weeks to prepare, often longerÔøΩ
So how did the US Government do it over that timespan without being noticed?
Why has the US controlled Media not covered this glaring, critical question AT ALL? (Answer: they want to keep their paychecks and food on the table.)
The "US controlled Media" HAVE covered this. However, there is NO EVIDENCE of a controlled demolition and the only plausable explanation is that some kind of structural damage caused the destruction of WTC7. What do you want them to report on? The loss of SEC investigation files? The important government offices within? They have, in fact, reported extensively on that.
Additionally, I think it's silly to suggest that the media gets is paycheck by failing to cover what would certainly be the most sensational story in modern Western history. The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize in 1973 for its investigation of the Watergate scandal. The writers who brought out the Lewinski scandal have reaped HUGE gains. US Media is an intensely competitive game in which one scoop can be the difference between success and failure, and the fact that no major news outlets are picking up the scent here is in fact an argument AGAINST your theory.
So! Choice (4) comes forth with nonsense while at the same time does not touch the subject. Please
spare me your obfuscating language about "terrible display of argument".
You are mistaken to think you can dissuade rational thought from the truth of what
one observes with one's own eyes. (You hold people to be pretty stupid, don't you? You, however, are transparent.)
Like I said, Choice (4), save your drivel.
I do not argue.
I CLAIM.
ANYONE WHO SEES A VIDEO OF WTC7 COMING DOWN KNOWS IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
That is not an argument, and we are well past that now.
Furthermore, to answer you on a couple of things, there IS evidence from analyses of materials from debris of WTC7 that Thermite (or its more powerful variant Thermate) was used in the demolition (your bad guys did not do a very good job of getting rid of ALL of the evidence like they tried to do).
And I notice that one of YOUR "arguments" is to answer my point with a question, "So how did the US Government do it over that time span without being noticed?" You hope to throw one off the trail while stalling for time--again, how transparent. Why don't YOU get the answer to your questionÔøΩ I'd mildly like to know how they managed it; of course, that is not important and certainly not germane to the simple point I am making.
It WAS prepped because it WAS a controlled demolition (I hate it when I have to repeat myself, but I do so here because you appear sinister).
To reiterate, anyone who sees a video of WTC7 KNOWS it was a controlled demolition.
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/whatsthetruth/WTTver3.wmv
http://st911.org/
Now if you have something worthwhile, that is one thing. But please do not waste time with your attempts to obscure.
The Bible: But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid."
So! Choice (4) comes forth with nonsense while at the same time does not touch the subject. Please spare me your obfuscating language about ÔøΩterrible display of argumentÔøΩ.
I am "in league with the badguys" huh? I am critical of all claims made on both sides of this debate. As I have said several times here, I absolutely do not dismiss your claims. What I want is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I have outlined repeatedly here that I find no evidence of possible motive, nor of the ability of a select few to get away with a crime like this. Given that, I believe the benefit of the doubt should be given to the "official" explanation. Therefore, it is your burden to prove to me that you are right. If it is so blatantly obvious that the government participated in the controlled demolition of WTC7 on 9/11, then why is it so hard for you explain a few things to me instead of berating me and hand-waving my arguments?
You are mistaken to think you can dissuade rational thought from the truth of what one observes with oneÔøΩs own eyes. (You hold people to be pretty stupid, donÔøΩt you? You, however, are transparent.)
I don't know what this means. If you are right and a vast majority of people disagree with you, wouldn't that make YOU the person who assumes the public to be stupid? I do not care about anoyone else's intelligence level here, I am simply asking YOU to convince ME of something that you claim is easily proved and completely obvious. That shouldn't be a difficult task, right?
Like I said, Choice (4), save your drivel.
I do not argue.
I CLAIM.
Getting into semantics is absolutely ridiculous here. Unless there is some substantive difference between "claim" and "argument" that you would like to articulate, I don't see how this should help convince me of anything.
ANYONE WHO SEES A VIDEO OF WTC7 COMING DOWN KNOWS IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
That is not an argument, and we are well past that now.
See also: begging the question. This is obviously up for argument. Fire could have caused it. Structural damage. The point is that you don't KNOW, rather, you assume. I will freely admit that I do as well. However, there are several reasons why my assumption is more sound than yours.
First, there is no motive whatsoever for the government to destroy WTC7. Even if there were one, its destruction could have been accomplished with much more certainty and much less risk in several ways: fire, accidental bomb/missile discharge, having WTC 1 and WTC 2 actually fall on it, plotting a "terrorist strike" that actually hits WTC7, etc. Why use controlled demolition?
Second, there is no opportunity. When did government officials covertly place the charges that would deomolish a building, a process which you admit takes AT LEAST two weeks. Is it at all plausable that thermite was placed throughout the building over the course of two weeks, that nobody noticed before, and that nobody noticed after?
Third, every investigation that has sprung forth from 9/11 that I have seen has arrived at the conclusion that WTC7 was brought down by structural failure caused by fire and debris impacts. To falsify these reports, thousands of people would have to be complicit. Do you honestly believe you could find thousands of average engineers, investigators, construction workers, and exectutives who would agree to be complicit in the murder of 3,000 Americans in a senseless, motiveless act that did not in any way serve their interests?
Furthermore, to answer you on a couple of things, there IS evidence from analyses of materials from debris of WTC7 that Thermite (or its more powerful variant Thermate) was used in the demolition (your bad guys did not do a very good job of getting rid of ALL of the evidence like they tried to do).
1) Source for the edvidence please.
2) If they could cover up the rest, don't you think they could manage to edit the analysis reports? Don't you think they would have?
3) They are not "my bad guys." I am a college student living in Illinois who votes democrat and wants to impeach Bush. Shut up with the personal crap. You don't know me, and you have no idea what I stand for.
And I notice that one of YOUR ÔøΩargumentsÔøΩ is to answer my point with a question, ÔøΩSo how did the US Government do it over that time span without being noticed?ÔøΩ You hope to throw one off the trail while stalling for timeÔøΩagain, how transparent. Why donÔøΩt YOU get the answer to your questionÔøΩ IÔøΩd mildly like to know how they managed it; of course, that is not important and certainly not germane to the simple point I am making.
My argument is a question. You imply that it is not possible for a few guys to covertly rig a building full of thousands of people, many of them 24/7, for implosion. I ask then, how was it done? Regardless of who did it, if it was imploded, this IS ABSOLUTELY A GERMANE QUESTION. If it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE then obviously your conclusion is invalid. See also: begging the question.
It WAS prepped because it WAS a controlled demolition (I hate it when I have to repeat myself, but I do so here because you appear sinister).
See also: begging the question. I am going to point out for the last time that you are going to have to convince me. I am willing to watch any movies, read any eyewitness accounts, and review any evidence, as I have done throughout the previous discussion with Cranium. I will answer any and all arguments, and I will cite every outside material I mention (if you don't believe me, dig around this website for a while, or just ask someone.) I am NOT some kind of idiot who just reads what happened in the newspaper and says "well, I read it, it must be true!" The fact of the matter is that all you are saying is "it was imploded because it looks like it was imploded. It could have been imploded because it was imploded." Do you see the circular nature of the argument? Would you be convinced if I argued that "It couldn't have been imploded because it wasn't imploded!" I highly doubt it. Why do you expect any less from me?
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/whatsthetruth/WTTver3.wmv
http://st911.org/
1) The fact that the vast majority of people around the site did NOT see the "flashes" hear the "bangs" or immediately assume controlled demolition rips to shreds the film-makers arguments. There are two choices: either eyewitnesses statements must be taken at face value, or they must not. If they are to be taken at face value, then how do we decide which ones to trust? The fact is that you have a handful of people who heard bangs and saw lights DURING A BUILDING COLLAPSE (a building, mind you, full of propane, lights, generators, and concrete.) These laypeople are not convincing. Show me deomlition experts who saw these things or make these claims. At the very least, show me a plurality of eyewitnesses. You can't.
If, on the other hand, eyewitness statements should NOT be taken at face value, then we approach a more grey area. Still we would have the vast majority not seeing the lights and hearing the bangs. But then again, it casts doubt on those eyewitnesses who agree with your theory. For example, simply having a few people say "it looked like one of those controlled demolitions I saw on TV" does not make that fact. Anyone can see that. There is, however, no corroborating evidence of this claim. So how do we view these eyewitnesses statements? With skepticism. In a jury trial, if a witness claims he saw the defendant stab the victim, but no stabwounds are found on the body, would you believe them? Of course not. Show me EVIDENCE.
Now if you have something worthwhile, that is one thing. But please do not waste time with your attempts to obscure.
I am not "attempting to obscure." I have made literally dozens of arguments in my posts here, and approximately two have been answered by either you or cranium. Who is it that is attempting to obscure here? Bring me facts. Don't bring me speculation, accusations, and insults.
The Bible: But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ÔøΩTake courage, it is I; do not be afraid.ÔøΩ
Proverbs 19:2 - Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.
Your source for the evidence is inside the two links I provided.
You are saying (because you have no "proof") that you don't know if WTC7's fall was by fire or by controlled demolition.
What is wrong with your mind that you can not recognize a controlled demolition when you see it?
Also, try examining the evidence provided in the links.
Learn.
Of course, you need to want to learn (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink).
Don't talk to me about insulting you. If I did THAT, believe me, you'd know it. You're just not used to people calling you on your bull. I can love the person and still not buy into foolish thinking.
Reasonable doubt, you say? When I look at the video there is no doubt in my mind. You and I must be different (and the difference is not in our eyes).
And when America sees the video there will be no doubt in theirs either. (I wonder why most Americans haven't seen it yet? answer: it's because THEY don't want them to see it; but it's finally beginning to get out now, thank God!)
This is my last word to you. You waste time and I shall answer you no further. Have the last word if you like but it will still be a waste.
Micah 3:8
On the other hand I am filled with power--
With the Spirit of the LORD--
And with justice and courage,
To make known to Jacob his rebellious act,
Even to Israel his sin.
Jesus said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
And elsewhere in God's Word Jesus said He was the gate.
This is sad. I watched the video you posted, and I watched the video cranium posted. Both make some interesting claims that are not supported by evidence beyond eyewitness claims about hearing bangs and seeing light. I'm sorry, but I don't find those convincing.
We see the same building come down, and we both find equally implausable causes for it. My arguments point to the added improbabilities that attach to your position, you point to no such problems with my position. Instead, you continue to imply that I am stupid, ignorant, complicit, or all three.
If this is how you plan to help people understand your point of view, I have to say, I don't quite see why you even bother. I have, over several days, made over thirty arguments that have gone completely unanswered here. I have responded to literally every statement made by both you and cranium, and have recieved nothing but insults and circular logic in return. I don't care about having the final word, more than that, I am disappointed that you believe in this so strongly and yet are unwilling or unable to explain to someone with an open (yet critical) mind why your position is superior.
Acts 4:29 - Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to
speak your word with great boldness.
Tell you what, Adam. Let's start over.
If I have insulted you, I am sorry, as that was not my intention (I meant to attack your viewpoint, not you). You seem like a gentlemen, and I guess I get a little animated at times, which causes me to get a tad ornery. I do not mean to, but it is because I firmly believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Anyway, how about no last word for either of us, and we start over. How about one thing at a time. I'll go first.
Here is a link to a video on the subject, but what I'd like you to scope in on is the scientific sound analysis that is about half-way through the video. Please let me know what you think.
Okay?
Here you go:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/
BTW, my older brother (58) thinks I am full of prunes about 9/11 (I'm 57), but he will not even look at videos, links, or any evidence. I guess I took my resentment about his apathy out on you (and everybody else who doesn't see it my way). (Yes, my wife knows I have my flaws, but she still loves me.) I love my brother dearly, always have and always will, but I think he’s a great big dope on this one!
So, like a said, I apologize.
But I still firmly believe everything I've said about a small faction within the US government causing 9/11.
One other thing—one of the biggest things on my mind these days is that I have a very strong feeling that these bad guys are getting ready very soon to do 9/11-Part 2, which will be much, much worse than 9/11. They will do this so they can protect and insulate themselves from Part 1 (and a few other things), but more importantly, to perfect martial law in the US, and thus end our way of life and speed us on into
the New World Order.
This is love: not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10
Here is a link to a video on the subject, but what IÔøΩd like you to scope in on is the scientific sound analysis that is about half-way through the video. Please let me know what you think.
Ok, most of the sound analysis in that video is about WTC1 and WTC2, but I will answer all of it, as well as the ridiculous "pyroclastic flow" assertions that follow.
1) It is categorically not true that every loud noise is caused by an "explosion." Despite this fact, every single spike or rumble pointed out in the sound analysis is attributed to an "explosion." This is clearly misleading speculation, for several reasons.
(a) No other symptoms of an explosion are present at any of the times the word "explosion" is used in text or by the narrator. There are no dust clouds (save the ground level one, but I'll get to that), no lights, fire, or debris ejections.
(b) Myriad other causes could be associated with the noises. Collapsing floors, collapsing support columns, buckling trusses, etc. The mere assertion that "booms are only caused by explosions" is not only unsubstantiated, but contradicted by life experience.
(c) Other noises cause similar spikes in the sound analysis: wind, screams, etc. This contributes to an overall lack of fidelity that puts the graphical data in question.
2) The dust cloud that is supposedly rising from the base of the building is not associated with the collapse or the noises.
(a) There is not even an effort made to connect the rumble first heard at the start of the audio analysis with the rising cloud at the bottom. The cloud was there to begin with, it was there during and after the rumble.
(b) If lower-level explosives were responsible for that dust cloud, then why does the progressive collapse of the building start AT THE TOP and proceed down? Why doesn't the building fall straight down in one piece like WTC7 (I will get to that too.)
(c) Other explanations are more plausable causes of the dust cloud given the weight of the evidence (motive, opportunity, etc): elevators crashing to the ground, floors collapsing sending air and debris shooting downward and out stariwells and elevator shafts, remnant clouds and vorticies from the other tower's collapse, etc.
3) There are no squibs present that are associated with any of the bangs heard in the sound analysis. Not a single one.
4) Eyewitnesses saying "it sounded like explosions; bang, bang, bang, then it came down... just like a building implosion" is simply not evidence. What could these eyewitnesses possibly have to compare the noises and visuals to? Assume for a moment that it wasn't controlled demolition, and I know it for fact, and I am being interviewed and asked to describe WHAT IT WAS LIKE. I would, of course, have nothing else to compare dramatic loud noises to other than explosions, and nothing to compare a building falling down to other than an implosion. Why should these witnesses be any different?
On to WTC7:
1) Why does the roar labeled "explosion #1" in the video occur a full 3-4 seconds before the penthouse of the building starts to collapse? If it were controlled demolition, shouldn't the fall be near immediate, or otherwise be followed by other "explosions" representing more support columns being blown? Doesn't that delay lend credence to the idea of progressive failure that begins vertically and expands horizontally as the NIST investigation concluded? (link: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf) Relevant quotations (emphasis mine):
Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas ... Failure of column 79, 80, or 81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse
A vertical failure would pile debris on the east side of the building, damaging ... girders and trusses between floors 5 and 7. This secondary damage has been postulated to cause a horizontal progression of failure in the core columns
The global collapse ... occured with the failure of core columns between floors 5 and 7.
2) Why isn't an alternate audio track used to analyze the sound associated with the collapse of WTC7? Surely the filmmakers could find an un-interrupted audio source rather than extrapolating from the stop-motion audio track taken from the Hoboken videographer?
3) After the sound analysis, the authors repeatedly use the phrase "explosive energy" which is even more misleading and assumptive than their gratuitous use of "explosion" earlier in the film.
(a) Saying "explosive energy" implies a cuase for the fall. In fact, there is absolutely no scientific meaning for the phrase "explosive energy" beyond "energy released rapidly. Implying it can only come from explosions is not only unscientific, it is irresponsible.
(b) I submit that any collapsing 47-story object weighing several tens of thousands of tons would be enough to produce this "explosive energy" regardless of what actually caused it. If you want to argue that point, I can do some science, but I don't think it's really up for argument.
The "pyroclastic flow":
1) The film-makers repeatedly make the assertion that pyroclastic flow is only caused by volcanos and "controlled demolitions." While this is not cited, and certainly not true (geysers, powerful earthquakes, nuclear explosions, among other things can cause them), I am wondering what makes a "controlled demolition" different from an "uncontrolled demolition"? If WTC7 had simply fallen down on its side, do you honestly think we wouldn't have seen EXACTLY THE SAME dust clouds expanding rapidly along free routes and controlled by gravity?
2) I would argue that the debris flows are, in fact, not pyroclastic in nature. Thankfully, the video evidence proves this for me. Pyroclastic flow, as the name implies, indicates propulsion by heat. This heat is generally at least 100 degrees C or 212 degrees F. This temperature exposed to the entire body for several minutes will cause at the very least massive second-degree burns on everyone who encounters them, melt plastic, and warp paint. The video evidence provided both in this documentary and elsewhere shows unharmed camera men and equipment walking alongside unharmed vehicles, unburned paper, and no clothing on fire. Tell me, where is the massive heat engine that is driving this "pyroclastic flow"?
Now, on to what really happened with WTC7:
The damage and fires caused a kink in one of columns 79, 80, or 81, transferring structural load vertically. That is all evidenced above. This transfer of load went straight to the fifth floor:
Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were
present on the 5th floor.
Moreover, fires burning on the fifth floor, supplimented by thousands of gallons of fuel burning, were reducing the ability of support columns to bear a horizontal load. The success of these fires in causing total structural failure is due to a couple things:
The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power
generators.
In a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor
framing above main lobby"
A majority of the 5th floor was not protected by sprinkler systems
Given that, and the structural evidence presented in the (incomplete) NIST report, how does your story make more since, despite its lack of motive, lack of opportunity, lack of corroborating evidence, and total implausability, than the "official" version of events?
Also, since "it looks like a controlled demolition, so it must be!" is one of your main arguments, I sumbit the following photograph taken on 9/15/01:
http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtcarp500pix2ur.jpg
What controlled demolition ends up looking like that? There are more pictures where that came from, but it's a good starting point.
Regarding the sound analysis in the video, those thundering sounds were something. You write, "Other noises cause similar spikes in the sound analysis: wind, screams, etc."
Wind? The only thought that comes to my mind in reading your sentences is "disingenuous".
Takes me back to my earlier thought that it is a waste of time to converse with.
My last word to you is this:
WTC7 is an OBVIOUS controlled demolition to anyone who sees a tape of its collapse. To say otherwise, in my mind, is to be disingenuous.
What really happened?
Premise:
9/11 was a US Government inside job. It had to be, and this is why:
Predicates:
i) WTC7 is an OBVIOUS controlled demolition [CD] to anyone who views its collapse.
ii) CD's take at least a minimum 2 weeks to prepare.
iii) WTC7 had high-level security, it being practically a government facility.
iv) No reports were ever made of any witnessing of any preparations for a CD.
Conclusion:
Therefore, security on the building must have been changed to allow for this preparation, and this could only have occurred with government complicity.