The “Official” 9-11 Discussion Thread

Here is the latest video about an alternate theory to the collapse of the twin tower:

Richard Gage on “The Standard” Canadian TV program – April 22nd, 2008

I think the interviewer asks the right questions at the right times and does as good a job (if not better) as Gage, he actually assumes the opposite side of the argument and I don’t think Gage fully understands this. I’d be happier to see a Chris Matthews-style grilling of the subject, but maybe that’s not necessary at this point.  To be fair to this video, I would have to take it apart line by line (which I might do, but not for at least a fews days).  The thread is here, and if anybody feels like comenting on it, I will continue to move it to the front page.

[thread originally posted June 6th]

[last moved  June 16th]

 

This entry was posted by JR.

68 thoughts on “The “Official” 9-11 Discussion Thread

  1. I hope they show up. I am not kissing your ass Johnny, this site really is proving to be a community resource. Thanks sweetness!

  2. I think it was Doom’s idea and Holmes hasn’t agreed to anything. In fact, I think he may be wearying of the issue. I’m totally willing to have the space used for an intelligent discussion, but I’m a little reticent about acting as any type of a moderator on this one. I’m sure by JHK’s next piece on Monday we will all have found something else to argue about and forgotten about 9-11 once again (like we have for most of the last 7 beautiful years, right?).

  3. I think hosting is plenty. You have done great with the Nudge/OEO battle. You will not get caught in the crossfire of this if they decide they want to communicate with Jones or look into it more and use this as a platform.

    What I would say is that things like this can be a “time sink.” Time is my most precious commodity, I know I can’t buy more. That is why the “agree to disagree” strategy is a very honorable one. No one wimped out, we just know it takes more time than we have and chances are excellent we are not going to have the resources to come up with a “definitive answer.”

    And yeah, we are ADHD nation, easily distracted, too much stim!

    Peace, gotta go do something that looks like work!

  4. Dang. The “discussion,” such as it is, continues on CFN. Maybe people need a little push.

    Then again, this is one of the most on-topic weeks at CFN that I’ve seen. We usually bat around what JHK writes for the first part of the first day, then go back to talking about peak oil and its ramifications. It’s Friday and at least a few people are *still* talking about 9/11.

  5. I’m here, and ready to kick some ass! Naw, just kidding. I really like Holmes and Bunn Bunn (but I am going to kick dave’s butt over this 9-11 stuff whenever we meet, lucky for him I won’t be flying much anymoron). Just kidding dave, I know you could kill me in less time than it will take you to stuff my limp body down one of those NY lake ice holes. I’ve always wanted to be buried “at sea”.

    But, I digress. Gotta run now and do some work-related writing. Thanks JR for setting this up. I hope I’ve answered your questions on CFN today.

    Chilling no, how fast things are unraveling on the oil/transportation fuel/airline fronts?

  6. Dr. Doom,

    I appreciate your continued interest in this topic (although JR is right about me rapidly losing interest), and your offer to broker an introduction to Mr. Jones. If I had lots of additional time to indulge my every whimsical interest, I might even take you up on it… but you know my reality. Think I’m going to step back from the 911 discussion for awhile. It’s been interesting to say the least.

    Maybe with his next post JHK will get everyone going on Chappaquiddick, Sasquatch and/or Alien Visitation theories!

    Stop blowing Bunn Bunn’s cover, muthafucka!

  7. Holmes, actually I thought Bunn Bunn was sort of a deity living amongst us in furry earthly form, here to remind us of the errors of our ways and to enjoy carrots and pleasant discussion.

    Agreed on FAR’s point: when was the last time we saw the weekly topic remain in play for longer than a day or two before we return to CFN’s BAU mode?

  8. Did anyone catch the part where Gage claims in the interview that someone (Jones et al.?) found small pieces of unburned thermate in the WTC dust? There was also an implication that this stuff was advanced, like from the defense industry. I recall the point being made that Islamic radicals wouldn’t be able to obtain such stuff.

    I thought the pictures of the melted steel beams were impressive.

    We need a transcript.

  9. So, if I bravely (stupidly?) fill out the A&E (architects and engineers) 9-11 petition form, does that also place my name on an “enemy combatants” list with the DIA? I’ve always wanted to visit Cuba and tour their tobacco plantations.

  10. I was informed of the 9-11 truth information about a year ago. The more I hear about it, the more I WANT to hear about it. This is one of the most intriguing things I have ever run across. As a guy that deals with metals every day, I know something is amiss.

    Gage did well with the ADHD victim that interviewed him. I’m 50 this year, and hope to live long enough to know what really happened.

    “There’s somethin’ scwewy goin’ on hewe”, (E. Fudd)

  11. ““There’s somethin’ scwewy goin’ on hewe”, (E. Fudd)” –gulland

    Jewish lightning….. OMG, did you really say that EE?

  12. Once the pancaking started it would involve nearly instantaneous forcing of air from each level as it went. Tremendous forced-air blasts through vents, elevator shafts and stairwells, and probably where steel members were shoved through floors as it went. Pulses of air jetted through preferential pathways in an instant, and blowing the windows out several floors below each slamming pancake. Visually from below this would look like a chain of demolitions touching off in rapid fire and ahead of the freefall.

  13. SB, Jones et al. have addressed the point about the videotaped venting from the WTC buildings as the pressure inside builds on lower floors from the mass of collapsing floors above. Two problems with this scenario: (1) the gas and debris from the towers and WTC-7 are emitted at speeds greater than those calculated from such pressurization, suggesting violent explosions; (2) the observed jetting from the side of WTC-7 works it way UP the building sequentially, in apparent defiance of gravity, and is recorded just prior to the roof collapse.

    What is so special about the WTC concrete that makes it totally pulverize in such apparent gravity collapses? No floors or chunks of flooring were preserved. The steel superstructures are completely missing, as well. This is strange all by itself, but it is consistent with controlled demolitions.

  14. Also, please explain how the upper floors “freefall” through all the concrete and steel lying directly beneath them.

  15. @EE, Gulland — welcome aboard! (About time you showed up!) Great posts over at CFN today, both of you.

    @Saint Bif — I’m beginning to feel as if you, JR, dave, thal and I (and a few others) have become minority voices on this 9/11 topic, at least within the CFN community. No worries, we have Bunn Bunn on our side. The Colonel is now slightly concerned about the Lakers getting it done in a tidy 6 games, but — after smoking a cigar to calm his nerves — has now embarked upon the distracter task of encircling various high probability JHK Zombie bait themes with cognitive bias percussion grenades. Thankfully, Bunn Bunn is nocturnal (as much work remains to be done). If Jimbo continues in his prankster ways, Monday morning’s onslaught is going to be even uglier and more pointless than Radmonovic’s attempted defense of Pierce.

    @Doom — Sorry Sir, the Reeducation Camp Experience no longer includes the Che Guevara Cigar Tour. Please indulge in enemy combatant activities again.

  16. this is a very common diversion. i call call it “debating matters of fact”. i think some lawyers call it the same (holmes?).

    if “your” (who fucking ever) theory is that bush etal, planned and executed said attack, then present some evidence to that effect. talking about details of the collapse is just bullshit. planes hit the fucking buildings and they fell down. get over it.

  17. if you have a story about how things went down, let’s hear it. names, time lines, physical evidence, eye witness testimony, &ct. if not, fuck off. who cares?

    not you doom. you’re alright. but the worm has invaded your brain on this one, sorry. it happens to the best.

  18. at one point in my life i was a scientologist. this is a very embarrassing admition for me.

  19. like kuhn might say, maybe not, but anyhoo: there are always anomolies. put them into some cohereant context, or shut the fuck up. you’re just another jibbering retard. just sayin’.

  20. I just want to say that I am still not getting involved. I love you all and I want to make sure that we all remain friends.

    And I want to apologize to Dave for insinuating he was Mark Fuhrman the other day. I always knew you were John Travolta.

    I am busy compiling a book of your quotes. I’ll share all proceeds from sales with you and Doom. My favorite was the one about the wagon and the shopping cart.

    OK, now over to CFN, to see what the class-act jibbering retards have to say !

  21. dave, I have this dream about going ice fishing with you and greenbeans on some frozen New York lake. we could invite some others, like Holmes and Yarra and Gulland and Remus and JR and Nudge, FAR, EE, etc., but then there’d be too many to crowd around the ice hole, but we could get some government-issue thermite (TM) from Army surplus and we could make the hole bigger…. which reminds me of a scene in the original “The Thing”, which IMHO is one of the all-time best classic sci-fi horror movies.

    anyway, i recall things didn’t quite work out as planned in that movie scene with them using the thermite, jus’ sayin’.

  22. Damn duplicate post. JR, how the hell did that happen? Please delete one or more. Thanks.

  23. The whole 9-11 affair stinks to high heaven. Watching those buildings fall on TV didn’t look or feel right – hell the whole damn tragedy had an eerie feel to it from the minute I saw watched the second plane hit.

    Too much that has been said and written just strike the wrong chords. I trust my instincts on this one. I don’t think we’d know the truth even if we have heard it, and I don’t think we have.

  24. Mind if I keep them for now? There are slight changes you made in the second one and I’m fascinated by them. And want to know how this happened. This isn’t a double post.

    But I also want people to know that I will delete or allow you to edit your posts on request. Unless it is like really good stuff, or it would disrupt the logical flow of a good thread.

    Of course, if Doom yells at me to delet eone, I will, right now. But “The Thing” (the 1979 vesrion with Kurt Russell) is one of the best movies ever, forget sci-fi. And bears repeating 3 times.

  25. OK, I will finally chime in. Remus’ 50 words at 11:16 sum up how I feel.

    I don’t know the truth. I don’t think I ever will. The Israelis reportedly re-enacted the Kennedy assassination with professional snipers and the best weapons multiple times. Nobody could make the shot. I’ve seen every video there is on that one. yet in my heart I believe Oswald acted alone.

    What I believe doesn’t mean anything. I wasn’t there. I know as much as anybody else.

    The Towers falling at freefall speed (if they in fact did) is very weird. But It doesn’t clinch anything for me.

    How much would it cost to build two towers to those specs in the desert.? Demo one and set the second so the top twenty floors pancake. To see what happens?

    100 million? 200 million? 1 Billion?

    Would it be worth it?

    Convince Gates or Soros.

  26. JR, I think the boyz at NIST did some scale model work. Guess what happened, they could not get the towers to collapse due to fire, duh. Think there have been others, as well.

    Years ago, when this 9-11 stuff was fresh, I also suggested the scale model approach. I’m sure many have. You are suggesting a full tower (no need two). In a moron just world, we could rebuild both of them in the same spot, then cut a few support beams and set them on fire. If they collapse, OK we all go home and move on. If they don’t (and I would be willing to bet a solid gold peso they won’t) then we fetch Bush and Cheney out of their Paraguay ranch retreats and have a good old fashioned lynching.

  27. “they could not get the towers to collapse due to fire”

    Right, exactly. What I’m saying is on the tower that would re-enact the “official story” just cutter-charge the columns on say three floors (where the plane was). Let the 20 floors above that fall as one unit and start the pancake.

    What about the “unofficial”/ alternative scenario? Even if you control demo a building, does the top (very top) hit the ground at a pure-gravity 10ms^2 rate? There’s no resistance at all in that case. Same as dropping a feather in a vacuum?

    I tend to give Bif’s and Holmes’ counter-arguments a fair hearing. This guy Gage (and others) never do. They don’t address these points. But I could be wrong. I’d like to think it is time to see the 911Truth gang provide counter-counter-arguments. Do they exist?

    It’s like GreyZone on TOD on the June 6th Drumbeat. Pitt the Elder ripped him. GreyZone didn’t respond. I say this for a reason. I know Greyzone. Back in the day, I eventually smoked him on every argument we ever had. But when he was beat, he went silent.

    Only to appear 3 weeks later to argue the same points, as if nothing had happened. After awhile, you realize this is what TOD is all about, and you call their bullshit, and they ban you.

    Greyzone and Westexas are the stubborn ones. Guys like Stuart Staniford just dissappear.

  28. @EE, Gulland — welcome aboard! (About time you showed up!) Great posts over at CFN today, both of you.

    JR-

    Been lurking for some months now but couldn’t resist being a wiseacre on this post. Must have been the ghost of my Russian Jewish GG grandfather who was absorbed into the totally matriarchal Episcopalian family of my GG grandmother, one of four babelicious sisters.

    Humor was the only thing that saved him from that crowd!

    As I mentioned at CFN last week, I watched from my apartment as smoke poured out of the Pentagon after it was hit on 9-11. The neighborhood was chaos as all the suburbanites who worked at the IMF and World Bank went racing for the hills at the same time.

    All the thousands of kiddies attending GWU got out by train and car and the university suspended its operations for the week.

    Rumors were swirling around the ‘hood that car bombs had exploded over at the State Department. The internet was useless as were cellphones. The only reliable information came from the television.

    Finally, around noon, the city was pretty much a ghost town except for the humvees–the real, camoflage kind with soldiers attached–all around the main drags in my neck of the woods.

    Since it was a picture perfect day–and I couldn’t bear watching videos of the towers collapsing one more time–a good friend and I decided to walk over to Georgetown (another ghost town) and back. No cars. Very few people and more humvees and soldiers.

    When we returned at dusk to Foggy Bottom, we went up to the roof of her building (across from the Watergate) and watched the Pentagon burning through binoculars. It looked white hot in the section that had been hit and subsequently collapsed from the plane crash and subsequent fire.

    A few days later, I discovered that one of my NYC colleagues lives a few blocks from the WTC site and was rushing to get home when one of the towers collapsed. She was covered in ash and also was struck by the dismembered finger of a woman working in the tower and killed in the collapse. Authorities ID’ed the woman through DNA and my colleague eventually met and talked with her husband.

    Three years later, at a wake for the partner of a good friend and neighbor, I met a gentleman who lives on Arlington Ridge in a building that overlooks the Pentagon from the West. He also happens to be a retired pilot and was home on 9-11. He could hear the AA flight from Dulles roaring overhead and new something was drastically wrong. By the time he got to the balcony, the plane had hit.

    Until JHK wrote about 9-11 in last week’s post, I had put it neatly in a closed container in the farthest reaches of my memory, and have treated NYC like Chernobyl. Same thing with the Pentagon. I don’t even like going by it.

    My thinking may be very faulty on this but I’m not convinced 9-11 was a conspiracy–other than amongst the suicide Saudis and friends–any more than I’m convinced it was a black swan.

    Prior to the attacks, one of my neighbors who was a high-level State employee had been giving us all a heads up for years when she got wind of security threat-levels rising in DC. She would go batshit for weeks at a time whenever there were sustained high levels of threats. But nothing every came of any threat until 9-11.

    The only thing swan-ny about it was that it wasn’t really a hi-jacking (there were lots of those in the ’70s both here and abroad). It was about turning commercial airlines and all aboard into death dealing weapons.

    Must say ciao for now on that happy note.

  29. “What about the “unofficial”/ alternative scenario? Even if you control demo a building, does the top (very top) hit the ground at a pure-gravity 10ms^2 rate? There’s no resistance at all in that case. Same as dropping a feather in a vacuum?”–JR

    JR, I have a technical advantage over some of these folks because making these factoid arguments is what I do professionally. Preponderance of facts that fit your hypothesis is the winning route—you just pile it on. But, it only takes one contradictory fact to stop your pet hypothesis cold, so you have to carefully consider all counterpoints. Sometimes there is a seeming show-stopper, but if it takes special pleading to make its case, then it’s usually discarded.

    Nothing really free-falls like it’s in a vacuum, unless of course it is. There is always air at 1 atmosphere pressure (or greater) to resist. In the controlled demolition case, the buildings fall at rates very near the free-fall in vacuum rates, but slightly slower (air plus loose debris slow the fall). However, when we compare these fall times with a classic gravity-pancake scenario, the times are significantly slower for the gravity-pancake. Why? Because the supporting steel structure underneath will resist the fall, as will all that flooring mass. In controlled demolitions work, the timed charges effectively clear the underlying support beams away from the falling mass, as it accelerates down.

    The WTC steel superstructure had a safety factor of 5 on the loading, i.e., it was only 20% loaded at the time the towers were hit by planes. It was sufficiently strong in the towers to stop a pancake collapse of the upper floors, if they had indeed fallen by the official scenario. There are technical papers by engineers that support these statements, if you want to read them, let me know.

  30. I know, never say “loaded” to a crack-cocaine addict. Yes JR, I had slightly edited the first of the so-called double post when, as I hit post for the second version, I noted it had accepted the first version. Weird, but wordpress issued a “double post” warning which I ignored.

    FYI, these minor edits were: delete “still” from first sentence; capitalize r in remus to match others; changed “I could’ to “we could get…” in forth sentence to be moron inclusive (I, I, I….what an egotistical jerk).

    So, please delete the first one, but it is very close to the second version.

    Personally, I love both the 1951 version of “The Thing” and the later version by John Carpenter. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, even after allowing for the time span between them. As a small kid, the 1951 version made a big impression, usually as a rerun on TV. The only other movie that moved me like that was another B&W classic, “The Bedford Incident”, starring Richard Widmark. What a high tension mind-blower, relentless.

    My favorite RW line from the movie: “If he (the Russian submarine commander) fires one, then I’ll fire one!” Spooked underling at fire control, played by James MacArthur, visibly perspiring: “Fire One!”

    Sound of post-mortem Russian submarine’s torpedoes approaching ship: Ping, ping, ping, ping, ping….[silence] screen goes white….roll credits.

  31. “I have a technical advantage over some of these folks because making these factoid arguments is what I do professionally.”

    Fucking arrogant bullshit DD. Self-proclaimed superior analytical abilities. Classic ivory tower. Besides, you don’t know the professions and technical backgrounds of everyone commenting here, if comparing laurels is what you want to do.

    DD, you said, “The WTC steel superstructure had a safety factor of 5 on the loading, i.e., it was only 20% loaded at the time the towers were hit by planes. It was sufficiently strong in the towers to stop a pancake collapse of the upper floors, if they had indeed fallen by the official scenario. There are technical papers by engineers that support these statements, if you want to read them, let me know.”

    Excerpts from a paper by engineers Bazant and Verdure (2007) re the collapse of WTC:

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

    “The elastically calculated stresses caused by impact of the upper part of tower onto the lower part were found to be 31 times greater than the design stresses…”

    “Before disappearing from view, the upper part of the South tower was seen to tilt significantly and of the North tower mildly. Some wondered why the tilting did not continue, so that the upper part would pivot about its base like a falling tree. However, such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elastoplastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3 x.”

    “The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4 x larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account. This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story _or even 0.5 m.”

    Are you telling me the engineering department at Northwestern is inept? Or are they part of the conspiracy too?

  32. First post deleted. I haven’t seen the original 1951 version. You can bet I will, though, soon. I’m sorry I made it seem like the 1979 was better than anything. I just really love that film, and due to my cable channel’s scheduling, I’ve seen it twice in the last two months.

  33. St. Bif, first off, let me clarify my remarks to which you refer. I’m only saying I can understand many, perhaps even most, but not all, of the technical aspects of the WTC collapse. I don’t mean to brag, but I’m also not going to apologize to you or anyone else that I can do it. I believe what I have said is I can follow a technical argument based upon facts and a line of reasoning from them. Some commenting here may not, probably because they don’t have the technical background in physics and chemistry. Perhaps you do, so fine, let’s get down to those facts and the logical reasoning aspects, and avoid using an ad hominen attacks.

    My statement on the strength of the WTC towers was derived from a paper by Jones et al. that in turn was quoting Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. You can read his paper on the topic here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf

    He discusses the 8.4X larger kinetic energy aspect that your Bazant and Verdure (2007) engineering paper discusses. Ross in fact quotes the steel safety factor 4X, (not 5X as I either got from the Jones et al. paper or simply recalled wrongly). The point is that such structures do indeed have safety margins or factors, which some engineers have neglected in their analysis. In his paper, Ross is directing his critique at Dr. Bazant, whose theoretical work NIST relied upon for their report. Here is a relevant excerpt:

    “The effect of this error by Dr. Bazant is an error in his ratio of energies. If this is adjusted to take account of a factor of safety of 4 the ratio is reduced from his value of 8.4 to 2.1. It must also be noted that the ratio mentioned by Dr. Bazant is relevant only to the first collision after a freefall of one storey. He is specifically dealing with a situation where the energy of the fall through two storeys is resisted by the columns of one storey. The continuation of the collapse would not have these conditions but rather have the fall of one storey resisted by the columns of one storey. Without the period of uncontested freefall the ratio of energies would be reduced for the remaining duration of the collapse from Dr. Bazant’s figure of 8.4 to 1.05.”

    At a value of less than 1, even Bazant’s work suggests gravity collapse would be stopped. Ross goes on to show other failings in Bazant’s theoretical work for NIST that would lower the value further. I’m not saying Bazant and Verdure (2007) are inept, but it sure sounds like Ross is making that claim.

    Here’s a paper I recommend that requires no math to understand, just logic and common sense, and your own eyes: “9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations” by Frank Legge, Link here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVerticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf

    Legge’s Conclusions:

    “As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur. The organizations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants.

    In the case of WTC 7 the use of explosives is not merely the most logical explanation for the collapse, it is also the most obvious when once examined: the collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition in every respect. The duplicity of the three official investigations in avoiding consideration of explosives indicates that a cover-up is in place. This view is re- enforced by the rapid and secretive removal of crime scene evidence and persistent withholding of information. The existence of a cover-up is prima facie evidence for the complicity of some part of the administration of the USA in the criminal events of 9/11. [16] It is reasonable to believe that 9/11 was orchestrated to manipulate the public into supporting their pre-existing goal: invasion of Afghanistan. [17]”

    Here’s another interesting one, with some math in it:

    “Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage”
    By Dr. Crockett Grabbe

    Link here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

  34. SB, one other thing. Use of the word “conspiracy” as a negative label upon the views of those who entertain alternative 9-11 theories is illogical, as all views of the events of 9-11, including the so-called “official” or US government version are in fact conspiracy theories. The official view is al Qaeda conspired to attack the WTC and Pentagon and perhaps other targets in the US. They hijacked commercial planes and used them as weapons against their targets. The WTC twin towers were hit by planes, WTC-7 was damaged by debris, and all three steel structures caught fire and collapsed due to structural damage from the planes and debris, and the “intense” heat of the fires upon the steel superstructure of the buildings. The Pentagon was also hit by a plane and damaged by fires. Fortunately, it did not also collapse, like the WTC. Miraculously, not a single jet fighter from our mighty Air Force could intercept any of the deviant planes that flew about for up to 1 hour and 40 minutes that fateful day. [End of ridiculous conspiracy story spoon-fed to US and world population.]

  35. “let’s get down to those facts and the logical reasoning aspects, and avoid using an ad hominem attacks.”

    Totally agree.

    1) Doom is presenting the best argument out there for the alternative scenario.

    2) Bif is “bringing it” hardcore.

    3) No offense, Doom, but Bif is probably the smartest motherfucker I’ve ever had the chance to run across (next to Pitt the Elder) … or Dave.

    4) Keep it clean and come out fighting.

  36. I’ve got the preponderance of facts on my side, in spite of numerous attempts to destroy the physical evidence, stonewall and cover up. That, and the fact that when it comes to such fact and logic-based arguments, I am fearless. Bring it on, Einsteins.

  37. Here’s an interesting article from the Journal of 911 Studies website, link here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ProfScottJFK,911,andWar.pdf

    “9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events”, By Peter Dale Scott

    Excerpt: “Summary: The Repeated Modus Operandi for Cover-up

    There is a repeated cover-up MO here which is observed in both the JFK assassination and the two WTC attacks. These deep events were not properly solved, because the designated principals in them could not be properly investigated. The pre- selected candidates were ones about whom the truth did not emerge, because of the candidates’ controversial involvement in previous covered-up operations. This ensured that an institutional cover-up, already in place, was extended to cover the new crime, even though it was a major one.

    Oswald was one such pre-selected candidate. Those conspiratorially involved with Ali Mohamed and with 9/11 would also seem to fit the same description. That is what struckme most when I went back to compare the killings of Kennedy and of Meir Kahane. Both Oswald and Nosair were quickly declared “lone” assassins, to protect someone or something else. [100]”

    [SNIP]

    “Some of the similarities noted here are probably extrinsic to the events described. But others point to a strong common denominator between JFK and 9/11. We can mention in particular the following features of a common modus operandi:

    1) The prior designation of a suspect or suspects. These had a past intelligence involvement, which obstructed proper investigation of them, and of the deep events attributed to them. In both cases the suspects either were or involved double agents, with life stories or legends on two different levels.

    2) The laying of a paper trail. This was strong enough to ensure that investigation would lead promptly to the designated suspects.

    3) The immediate attribution of the deep event to the designated suspects.

    4) The announcement that the suspect or suspects acted alone, even when there was clear evidence to show this was not true. [103]

    5) Both deep events involved experienced criminals, drawn from the world of organized drug trafficking, as I show below.”

    [SNIP]

    “And then, six weeks later, it struck me that I had suppressed, even to myself, what should have been for me the most obvious and relevant similarities of all between JFK and 9/11: Both events opened the path to major wars (Vietnam in 1964-65, Afghanistan in 2001, followed by Iraq in 2003), upon which a small but powerful group were already intent.”

    Very interesting article, well researched (lot of footnotes), but perhaps you still believe in the findings of the Warren Commission Report, that Oswald acted alone in the JFK assassination, and Jack Ruby was just a disgruntled bar owner out to avenge JFK’s death.

  38. Hey, what’s with this third plane, flying around the WTC whilst they are under attack, in a well-known FAA no fly zone? Designated back-up plane or flying field command HQ?

    “The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks

    By Scholars for 9/11 Truth*

    * Scholars for 9/11 Truth has been appalled to learn that the author of this study has received threats against himself and his family for having written this article. The source of these threats has suggested that he drop out of our organization and that this study should “go away”. He has withdrawn from S9/11T, but this piece of research cannot “go away”. It has already been widely read and no doubt copied. Under the circumstances, it would be a huge mistake to allow this organization and its journal to be manipulated by external threats. Since the author has nothing to do with our decision to keep it in place, responsibility shifts to the organization. We hope others will pursue its leads.”

    Link here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_4_Jet.pdf

    Enough to make one paranoid, no?

  39. “Ad hominem attacks.”

    There was nothing in my comment that I would consider to be ad hominem. I did not attack your thesis by attacking you personally. On the contrary, I objected to YOU making it personal when you broadened the discussion to include your self-perceived superior qualifications. I did not even say that your lofty claims aren’t true, only that you have no information or basis upon which to make them, and so to me they are presumptuous and arrogant.

    In the little bit of reading I’ve done on this (you got me interested in it, damn you), there’s about 19 guys that say they have the “facts”. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence, plug numbers/modeling inputs/outputs, and interpretations that are being used to establish what is “fact”. You say you have a preponderance of facts yourself, and I will defer to you in sorting that out if you can.

    If we can get away from matters of metallurgy and heat-induced viscoplastic deformation for just a minute, I have this heart burn issue with the basic over-arching premise for the various “demolition by spooks” hypotheses.

    If some extraordinarily devious persons were looking to orchestrate a secret government-sponsored 911 kind of impact on the country, to shock and arouse patriotic fervor, it seems this would have been an unnecessarily difficult and risky way to do it. That’s why I think this is nonsense and a waste of time. Here’s a few reasons why I believe this:

    Given the destruction, high loss of life, disruption to the economy, and investigations that inevitably would ensue, the results, effect and cover-up would have to be guaranteed 100% successful, including containment of the truth afterwards and for many years, if not forever. Anything less would result in an opposite kind of national catastrophe of such shocking proportions that would dwarf that of 911, and result in the perpetrators hanging from the gallows in short order.

    The sheer scope of the planning, execution, and cover up of such an orchestrated inside-job could not guarantee a sufficiently high probability of success. Hundreds of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy, it would have to be done under the noses of thousands more. There’s a lot of people, and a lot of moving parts, simultaneous events, precision-timing, contingency plans, etc. Any feasibility study and risk analysis would have resulted in pointing out a myriad of things that could go wrong. Covering all of them to achieve the highest level of probability of success would have been an extraordinary task. Things would have to crash, blow up, burn, break, and fall where they should and as they were supposed to. Then hundreds of guys would have to keep their mouths shut especially AFTERWARD, when they realized the heinous and tragic end results of the act they participated in.

    If it was an inside-job as you suggest, the planning and set-up would have taken a long time. It would have been done during a time that straddled two diametrically-opposed presidential administrations. Hard to imagine.

    This building complex was like a small city. Its hard for me to imagine that it could be rigged/wired for such a feat under the noses of thousands of people who worked there, doing maintenance every day, repairing elevators, and stuff like installing and re-routing communications and electrical cabling for the building and its tenants. How could massive buildings like this be set up for a demolition by someone who had the highest confidence that no one would notice. I mean give me a break. Suggestions of synchronized wireless or laser triggering systems for an incredibly large and sophisticated demolition requirement are just ludicrous.

    OK, let’s say that “they” did not orchestrate 911. But let’s say they were concerned with possible attack on the WTC, and were concerned about containing the threat to prevent sensitive contents of the building(s) from being compromised (e.g. it has been suggested that one or more of these buildings contained spooky stuff related to corporate and/or national security). Would “they” go through all the trouble and risk to wire these buildings for demolition (hoping it would work perfectly for whatever was going to happen to the top or bottom or middle of these buildings?) or would they simply move the sensitive operations/stuff to a less vulnerable location? If you were in charge what would you do?

    So what do we have here? “They” would have been taking enormous risks, relying on the stealth and zippered mouths of an army of accomplices, independent enough to be undeterred by the change of presidential administrations, ready to harm both Wall Street and vast corporate interests (which it did), and confident that the event would accomplish the desired effect on the American psyche, and be sure that they could conceal the result from scrutiny, and that ultimately they could manage the results of any investigation. Who the hell are “they”!? Some kind of overconfident but highly capable neo-con techno-whiz loose-cannon ninjas? As Holmes suggested, they must traipse around in very large baggy pants. Those pants must have contained a lot of things, including the mind control drugs they injected into the necks of their posse of 852 operatives, as well as the airborne command center crew and the panels of investigating engineers.

    Again, there are many ways to construct a Pearl Harbor event and shock and arouse the nation against an enemy. Why on earth would someone choose probably one of the most complicated, difficult and risky ways of doing that? They wouldn’t. The idea of it may capture the imagination, but in the end I believe it is complete nonsense.

  40. Reasonable and moral men do not run our government nor are reasonable and moral men our enemy.

    D-Day was “complicated, difficult and risky” and performed in marginal weather conditions at best.

    The greater glory of a lesser god will consume life as we consume air.

  41. Yeah, and maybe we can get Pitt The Elder to definitively frame the question of what is and is not an “ad hominem” attack? Ehhh… what’s a little vitriol among friends? (Believe me. You’ll know it when you’re personally attacked as opposed to your contentions. Just sayin’.)

  42. UR, I wouldn’t argue any of you statements. However, I would say they are not applicable. Anyone capable of constructing such an elaborate plot would be a calculator. They would calculate the risks and choose a less risky way of achieving the same desired end result. Assuming the desired result is shock, outrage, fear and fervor toward actions as directed by the government.

    D-Day was complicated and had risks, but it’s a different animal. Everyone new it would happen and that it had to happen, the question was where and when. There was enough confidence in Allied power that even if things didn’t go all that well at the beach we would keep forcing the issue and still win in the end. Landing in marginal weather brought an additional element of surprise, it was worth the risk. However, in the case of the WTC, the “demolition by spooks” would be an unnecessary “go for broke” proposition. Unnecessary because less risky measures could have achieved the objective just as well.

    Why would an inside job involve flying a plane full of fuel into the Pentagon in addition to the WTC? Would that be necessary to achieve the desired results? I would say no, because again, this additional event only provides additional unneeded complexity and uneccessary risk. The premise that all of this was an inside job defies logic. Anyone smart enough to do it would also be smart enough to not do it this way.

    I’ve read some of the papers from both sides of the argument over the building collapse. It would not surprise me that the government did a poor job of investigating and explaining it, or that many discontinuities exist with regard to the official explanation, and that there is confounding evidence that doesn’t jive with that explanation. I agree that more should be done to answer questions about why those buildings fell, regardless of where it leads. Here’s an example: I have read about things like small molten iron droplets being found in the ash and soil and that this allegedly can only be explained by a thermate charged demolition event. I don’t know, but the superstructure of the towers were of welded construction, so might this material be relics of that process? Were more mundane explanations like this considered or did the truth squad only focus on the sinister possibilities? The structural and materials engineering forensic aspect of this I see as a morass. If Doom feels confident he can get his arms around it, fine. I’m at saturation point and must move on.

  43. DD, I see two flaws in the logic you’re presenting here:

    1) “Steel structures don’t collapse in fires.” Sure, but how many steel structure fires have been caused by a large jetliner with a nearly-full load of fuel ramming said structure at over 200mph? There’s an interesting animation, put together by a group of engineers, that simulates the event. To me, it’s throughly plausible that the combination of impact and resulting explosion/fire would weaken the supports enough to cause the towers to collapse.

    In the 40s or 50s, IIRC, a plane accidentally hit the Empire State Building but caused only repairable damage. The plane in question was much smaller & probably hit at a slower speed.

    2) “One floor collapsing wouldn’t bring the next floor down.” True, but it was the combined weight of 30 or 40 stories all at once that got things started. I remember seeing live video of the collapse on 9/11; the whole section above the impact point dropped down & tipped slightly to one side.

    3) “Hour and 40 minutes.” As I recall, NORAD actually scrambled jets, but only the President could give orders to shoot down the airliners. Cheney finally gave the order, as Bush-league was struck dumb(er than usual), but by that time it was all over. Remember, it initially was thought to be an 80s-style hijacking… and like people stuck in the “gas prices go up and come down again” meme, most of the people involved were stuck in the “hijack to Cuba or wherever” meme. I’m sure that as more planes veered off-course, questions were raised, but they still had to break through that mode of thinking, same as us PO’ers have to break through the cornucopian mode of thinking that we were indoctrinated with. It took the first, and maybe second, impacts to get through that thinking.

    4) “Third plane.” First I’ve heard about it, and I never saw any third plane in the live video. But if NORAD scrambled, and the fighter pilots were waiting for orders, they might have been in the area. Or not. If I’m only hearing about it after nearly 7 years…

    I’m keeping an open mind, but for now I’m siding with SB.

  44. «in the case of the WTC, the “demolition by spooks” would be an unnecessary “go for broke” proposition. Unnecessary because less risky measures could have achieved the objective just as well.»

    SB, one could say the same of Al-Q’s objectives as well. I’ve said on a number of occasions that they could have done a *LOT* more damage with minimum bloodshed. I hesitate to say more than that, for obvious reasons, but I’ve also said that Al-Q shot their wad on 9/11… their methods are self-limiting.

  45. Hi,

    I am probably out of line commenting here, but comment I must. I am going to post a link here but I understand that links sometimes do not work here.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810315-3,00.html

    I would like for you to read page 3 in this Times article entitled, “How to survive a disaster” the story of Rick Rescorla. It starts under the section called “How One Person Made a Difference.” This story made me cry, but more to the point, given who this guy was, and how he drilled these folks and patrolled all the time, I can’t see this particular human being 1) going along with a conspiracy to kill everyone or 2) missing all the explosives that it would take to blow the building.

    This guy was a paranoid, annoying, wonderful pit bull. I got the book. Great stuff.

    Not proof it was not a conspiracy, but for me, evidence against it.

    St. Bif, I feel like you do, if they were this good at logistics we would have the oil in Iraq flowing our way by now. Everything blows up in their faces unless Bush and crew are a total diversionary puppet show while the real masters do their work. Not likely.

  46. SB, Sorry, but this is going to be long and detailed if I am to respond in a reasonable fashion.

    “If some extraordinarily devious persons were looking to orchestrate a secret government-sponsored 911 kind of impact on the country, to shock and arouse patriotic fervor, it seems this would have been an unnecessarily difficult and risky way to do it. That’s why I think this is nonsense and a waste of time.”

    I could mention quite a few high-risk endeavors to take our generally peace-loving and isolationist population to war, like Pearl Harbor (WWII) and the Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam), but I’m going to assume you are among those that think these events were not orchestrated. Let’s take the assassination of JFK. That my friend was a conspiracy. Oswald not only did not act alone, he was probably as he said he was, “a patsy” (his last public words before being silenced by Jack Ruby). Do you not think that was a high-risk operation? Now, 45 years later, has the entire truth come out and the real conspirators been named and punished?

    “Given the destruction, high loss of life, disruption to the economy, and investigations that inevitably would ensue, the results, effect and cover-up would have to be guaranteed 100% successful, including containment of the truth afterwards and for many years, if not forever. Anything less would result in an opposite kind of national catastrophe of such shocking proportions that would dwarf that of 911, and result in the perpetrators hanging from the gallows in short order.”

    Really, SB, you are a very naïve person. 911 happened and it’s being covered up. JFK’s assassination happened and it’s been covered up for over 45 years. Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tokin, etc. Actually, the GOT was so lame, it’s been exposed a long time ago (need refs.) just like the equally lame nonexistent WMD that was our main excuse for invading formerly sovereign Iraq (Gee, just like Nazi Germany in WWII, aren’t we a special country now?)

    “The sheer scope of the planning, execution, and cover up of such an orchestrated inside-job could not guarantee a sufficiently high probability of success.”

    How do you know? The multiple plane attacks occurred. They were planned and executed. Using your own logic, what are the odds that our mighty intelligence services (CIA, DIA, etc.), plus Mosad, had not picked up on the al Qaeda plans, and then chose to (a) stand aside and do nothing, like the NORAD stand down that day, and the quite uncurious GWB with the kindergartners, and (b) add to the WTC plane effect (knowing beforehand that they would only damage, not destroy the buildings targeted) with some planted explosives, being damn sure BTW to destroy as much physical evidence as possible with said explosions?

    “Hundreds of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy, it would have to be done under the noses of thousands more.”

    Conjecture. I don’t know how many and neither do you, but a number of less than 100 to set charges seems reasonable to me. Using the scientific approach, why don’t we first find out how many trained persons it takes to demolish a building? There are commercial companies and military units, both foreign and domestic, in this business.

    Recall that the Watergate Conspiracy and Attempted Cover Up was caught by a single night watchman noting taped doors left by sloppy B&E Cubans. What if they hadn’t been so sloppy, or the watchman so curious? BTW, would you consider that a high-risk operation? Just curious… Cost President Nixon his job.

    “There’s a lot of people, and a lot of moving parts, simultaneous events, precision-timing, contingency plans, etc”

    See my last post above for evidence of a flying contingency plan.

    “Covering all of them to achieve the highest level of probability of success would have been an extraordinary task.”

    Yet steel high rises are routinely demolished all the time, using thermite and other charges. In fact, that’s about the only cost-effective way of taking them down.

    “Things would have to crash, blow up, burn, break, and fall where they should and as they were supposed to.”

    They did, and they do, all the time. It’s called “controlled demolition”.

    “Then hundreds of guys would have to keep their mouths shut especially AFTERWARD, when they realized the heinous and tragic end results of the act they participated in.”

    Conjecture again. You don’t know there were hundreds, and I suspect you know little about special operations forces and the codes that they make and maintain. How do you know it was not outsourced to the Israelis? Folks here talking to Israeli intelligence all the time? Chat, chat—NO, doubtful.

    “If it was an inside-job as you suggest, the planning and set-up would have taken a long time. It would have been done during a time that straddled two diametrically-opposed presidential administrations. Hard to imagine.”

    I’m not suggesting anything more than you are, just different. The known physical evidence is screaming volumes at you, though. How can you be so sure of the timing, how long, etc.? Some have suggested a group of neocons were orchestrating things. If so, they had over a decade to plan the general scheme, but perhaps only months to weeks to pull off the 911 events. Whomever did this had access to a group(s) trained in large-scale covert operations. They had to have patsies in place and a paper trail leading to them already fabricated (see the article link two posts up). Importantly, they also had control of US air defense (NORAD) and stood it down. That would implicate the executive branch, and/or the US military.

    Read the article linked in my second to last post. Ask yourself is this reasonable? Importantly, ask yourself “Was there a motive?” Who benefits and why?

    “This building complex was like a small city. Its hard for me to imagine that it could be rigged/wired for such a feat under the noses of thousands of people who worked there, doing maintenance every day, repairing elevators, and stuff like installing and re-routing communications and electrical cabling for the building and its tenants. How could massive buildings like this be set up for a demolition by someone who had the highest confidence that no one would notice. I mean give me a break. Suggestions of synchronized wireless or laser triggering systems for an incredibly large and sophisticated demolition requirement are just ludicrous.”

    I’m wondering about the limits of your imagination, SB. First, what’s so hard about planting stuff in restricted areas of buildings on weekends and holidays, after hours, etc. Does your office have a false ceiling? How often do you visit the utility closets, utility corridors, elevator shafts? Would you recognize a cutter charge, especially if covered or camouflaged in some way? You give me a break. Wireless synchronized triggering is par for the course, that’s SOP.

    “OK, let’s say that “they” did not orchestrate 911. But let’s say they were concerned with possible attack on the WTC, and were concerned about containing the threat to prevent sensitive contents of the building(s) from being compromised (e.g. it has been suggested that one or more of these buildings contained spooky stuff related to corporate and/or national security). Would “they” go through all the trouble and risk to wire these buildings for demolition (hoping it would work perfectly for whatever was going to happen to the top or bottom or middle of these buildings?) or would they simply move the sensitive operations/stuff to a less vulnerable location? If you were in charge what would you do?”

    This is a lot of conjecture. I wasn’t in charge, so I have no idea. Like good old Sergeant Friday on Dragnet (old LA detective TV show) used to say” “Just the facts, sir”.

    “So what do we have here?”

    I’m asking myself about that with you and Holmes, two apparently intelligent, successful, witty but extremely naïve individuals. Opinionated too, but hey, so is moi! I guess you guys sleep well at night, but I know the realities of Peak Oil are getting to you, otherwise why do you hang around CFN?

    ““They” would have been taking enormous risks, relying on the stealth and zippered mouths of an army of accomplices, independent enough to be undeterred by the change of presidential administrations, ready to harm both Wall Street and vast corporate interests (which it did), and confident that the event would accomplish the desired effect on the American psyche, and be sure that they could conceal the result from scrutiny, and that ultimately they could manage the results of any investigation. Who the hell are “they”!? Some kind of overconfident but highly capable neo-con techno-whiz loose-cannon ninjas? As Holmes suggested, they must traipse around in very large baggy pants. Those pants must have contained a lot of things, including the mind control drugs they injected into the necks of their posse of 852 operatives, as well as the airborne command center crew and the panels of investigating engineers.”

    Let me give you guys a big hint: read “Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Rupert, a former LA detective. On that last “statement” …”as well as the airborne command center crew and the panels of investigating engineers”, there is a fair amount of physical evidence for a plane flying about in the no-fly zone while the WTC was under attack (linked above). Gee, who was in that plane? There’s another article in the journal of 911 studies on an AWAC that was circling the White House that day. Maybe we should read about it, too. And, you guys ever heard the term “need to know”? It’s military/intel SOP.

    “Again, there are many ways to construct a Pearl Harbor event and shock and arouse the nation against an enemy. Why on earth would someone choose probably one of the most complicated, difficult and risky ways of doing that? They wouldn’t. The idea of it may capture the imagination, but in the end I believe it is complete nonsense.”

    And attempt to do it twice, in the case of the WTC! Opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one. The winning hypothesis must explain the all the physical evidence. You are both ignoring that evidence and falling into a “plausibility trap” that whomever planned and carried out the events of 911 were banking upon. BTW, it was a conspiracy, that’s what we’ve all been told, it’s “official”. Do you also believe all the other stories that our government tells you?

    P.S. Another hint: it’s ultimately about Peak Oil. Heinberg got that right, so did Rupert.

  47. FAR, MOU, I’ll get around to responding to you later. It’s late now. Thanks for your interest.

  48. Where did the communcation ducts go in the twin towers?
    I don’t know, but in my experience (installing & maintaining cabling in such buildings) it goes near the lift shafts.
    Those towers had the load on the outside steel superstructure, possibly nothing was planted near the comms ducts (and of course possibly nothing WAS planted).
    Also, we were always told that if we saw something suspicious near communications to leave it in place and report it to our supervisor, NOT to remove or tamper with it.
    I accept that I have expressed two points of my own opinion here – but I maintain that it is worth 2 cents!

  49. Dr. Doom,

    Ohhh, so now it’s the Israelis who were maybe behind 911. No conjecture allowed, but we must use our imaginations! Call me naive all you want. You’re the one who is building his entire 911 belief system based on 911 journal/truth work product as your baseline for defining “facts” and framing issues and, now, great… you add “Crossing the Rubicon” to your inventory of evidence. I don’t have personal credibility vested in this. Nor do I have an ulterior (political) motive. I’m looking at evidence. You and I apparently deploy a different form of logic when it comes to approaching an inquiry of this nature. Whether or not I am “successful” or “witty” is probably irrelevant. But hey, you know or ought to know what the relevant facts are. Carry on.

  50. Hi Doom, thanks. A robust response, but hey, how come you get to use conjecture and I don’t? I have a few issues with some of your points of course. Here’s one item:

    You quoted my statement of “Things would have to crash, blow up, burn, break, and fall where they should and as they were supposed to.”… and responded to it with this… “They did, and they do, all the time. It’s called “controlled demolition”.

    Not so fast. You had suggested something much broader than just a controlled demolition. You are suggesting the whole thing was orchestrated, the crashing of planes into buildings, and complete with an airborne control center circling in the sky. In my sentence I am speaking to this entire scope of events you have suggested, and that all of this in its unfolding and overlapping violent and messy complexity would have to go completely according to plan, regardless of exactly where two planes hit at 400 or 500 mph, and regardless of how chips flew and fires raged. This is fertile ground for Murphy’s Law, the pros would know it too. If any of this scheme does not go precisely according to plan there is going to be lots of rather embarrassing evidence left over, difficult questions and answers, and plenty of volunteers for manning the firing squads. The trail of bread crumbs would not have led to perpetrators in this case to getting the Ollie North hero treatment.

  51. ” A robust response, but hey, how come you get to use conjecture and I don’t?”
    You do, a lot. Mine counts about as much as yours (nada, zip, zero).

    “You are suggesting the whole thing was orchestrated,…”

    Well, yes, I am. Somebody had to organize this event, no? We should only be differing here in the who, and perhaps how much planning or by how many, and that’s about all. You also seem to be arguing against the possibility of it all working out as to plan, but things rarely work that way.

    Here’s an example: United flight 93, the one that crashed into a Pennsylvania field. That was certainly a fuck up. It was likely headed for either the Capital or the White House as targets (would have been truly spectacular, no?; would have gotten Americans really riled up, no? Where was GWB again?), but because of some brave passengers, alerted to the mission MO by cell and plane phones (that the organizers clearly overlooked), they apparently disrupted the plane’s hijackers enough to crash the plane prematurely.

    Here’s another one: despite all the WTC steel and burned cars, etc. that were quickly disposed of to recyclers, and despite all the previous and ongoing attempts to stall investigations and cover up, “they” (the orchestrators) forgot that tiny microscopic clues would be distributed in the WTC building dust, clues that very high temperature charges and explosives were used, in fact, apparently tiny fragments of unburned thermate have been found in the collected dust (per the Gage interview). Ooops! Gee, that’s physical evidence that the “official” conspiracy theory fails to account for. I mean, why go to all the trouble of hijacking commercial airplanes and fly them into buildings if all you need to do is press some buttons and they all collapse? Why indeed? Could it possibly be that there was a plan in place to pin all these terrible events onto a certain ME terrorist organization? And, if so, why would “they” want to do that? Common guys (and gals), use your imaginations!

  52. “Ohhh, so now it’s the Israelis who were maybe behind 911. No conjecture allowed, but we must use our imaginations! Call me naive all you want. You’re the one who is building his entire 911 belief system based on 911 journal/truth work product as your baseline for defining “facts” and framing issues and, now, great… you add “Crossing the Rubicon” to your inventory of evidence. I don’t have personal credibility vested in this. Nor do I have an ulterior (political) motive. I’m looking at evidence. You and I apparently deploy a different form of logic when it comes to approaching an inquiry of this nature. Whether or not I am “successful” or “witty” is probably irrelevant. But hey, you know or ought to know what the relevant facts are. Carry on.”

    Holmes, this is funny. I try to be serious with you, but I always end up laughing my ass off. We really need to get together again over some brews. Bring St. Bif, LTL and Bunn Bunn!

    OK, I’ll try to be serious for a moment:

    “Ohhh, so now it’s the Israelis who were maybe behind 911.”

    Perhaps. They have the skills and the motives. The USA uses them and vice versa. Their specialty: ME issues.

    Recall the Republicans like to outsource their dirty tricks, e.g., Cubans for Watergate under Nixon; Turks and Central Americans for Iran-Contra under Reagan, both high-risk conspiracies, both involving criminals and crimes committed. If caught, it allows a certain distance, for awhile.

    “No conjecture allowed, but we must use our imaginations!”

    You can use all the conjecture you want to, just recognize it for the garbage that it is. Please do use your imagination, and considerable native abilities to connect dots.

    “Call me naive all you want.”

    If the shoe fits,…

    “You’re the one who is building his entire 911 belief system based on 911 journal/truth work product as your baseline for defining “facts” and framing issues and, now, great… you add “Crossing the Rubicon” to your inventory of evidence.”

    Sure it’s a “belief system”, so is yours, in fact, everyone that is conscious with some minimal IQ uses belief systems, they are what get you through the day (and night). Formally, in science we call them “hypotheses”.

    An online journal is not a product, OK? Yes, I’ve added a book. Where’s yours? The official 9-11 report? I have a copy. Let’s compare notes.

    “I don’t have personal credibility vested in this. Nor do I have an ulterior (political) motive. I’m looking at evidence.”

    Good, good, and good. I’m in fact trying to get you to look at ALL the evidence.

    “You and I apparently deploy a different form of logic when it comes to approaching an inquiry of this nature.”

    Perhaps. You’re a lawyer by training, and I’m a scientist by training. It should not be a great surprise that we approach problems somewhat differently.

    “Whether or not I am “successful” or “witty” is probably irrelevant. But hey, you know or ought to know what the relevant facts are. Carry on.”

    Irregardless (my new fav word), please accept my compliments. They are sincerely felt gifts, and as the person receiving them, you have me at a disadvantage. I hope you will accept my gifts to you. Thanking you humbly in advance.

  53. DD, I see two flaws in the logic you’re presenting here:

    1) “Steel structures don’t collapse in fires.” Sure, but how many steel structure fires have been caused by a large jetliner with a nearly-full load of fuel ramming said structure at over 200mph? There’s an interesting animation, put together by a group of engineers, that simulates the event. To me, it’s throughly plausible that the combination of impact and resulting explosion/fire would weaken the supports enough to cause the towers to collapse.
    In the 40s or 50s, IIRC, a plane accidentally hit the Empire State Building but caused only repairable damage. The plane in question was much smaller & probably hit at a slower speed.

    I could easily dismiss the above paragraph by reminding you that WTC-7, which also collapsed, was not struck by a plane. It was on fire in places, from debris that hit the building from the towers, as were several other buildings nearby that did not collapse.

    You’re suggesting that the impact of the planes caused the towers to collapse. Yet they stood there for hours before collapsing rapidly. There is vast evidence that indicates the jet fuel, which looked spectacular, burned well below its maximum temperature (1100 C) and only briefly, tens of minutes after impact. Afterward, the dark smoke was from burning office materials, also too low temperature to cause structural failure of steel superstructure. In fact, there are photos of people standing and sitting in the exterior hole made by one of the planes, therefore, not too hot in there. So, no failure from fires. If mechanical (damaged steel structures), why the delay in collapse in both buildings?

    There are taped interviews with the WTC building architects claiming the towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the common jetliner of that era (and not that small, either). It seems they were aware of the Empire State Building plane incident. That’s also why lower Manhatten was/still is an FAA no-fly zone.

    2) “One floor collapsing wouldn’t bring the next floor down.” True, but it was the combined weight of 30 or 40 stories all at once that got things started. I remember seeing live video of the collapse on 9/11; the whole section above the impact point dropped down & tipped slightly to one side.

    Why didn’t it (the tower you watched) just topple over then? Because the underlying superstructure was cleared away by undercutting charges. That’s why they came straight down, instead, and in near free-fall.

    3) “Hour and 40 minutes.” As I recall, NORAD actually scrambled jets, but only the President could give orders to shoot down the airliners. Cheney finally gave the order, as Bush-league was struck dumb(er than usual), but by that time it was all over. Remember, it initially was thought to be an 80s-style hijacking… and like people stuck in the “gas prices go up and come down again” meme, most of the people involved were stuck in the “hijack to Cuba or wherever” meme. I’m sure that as more planes veered off-course, questions were raised, but they still had to break through that mode of thinking, same as us PO’ers have to break through the cornucopian mode of thinking that we were indoctrinated with. It took the first, and maybe second, impacts to get through that thinking.

    You’re missing the important point that not a single NORAD jet fighter intercepted a single deviant plane that day. SOP is not to shoot down the plane, it is to make close approach and accompany, which BTW would have given us more physical evidence as to whom exactly was flying those planes. Too bad, huh? I’m sure that was just another military/executive F-up.

    4) “Third plane.” First I’ve heard about it, and I never saw any third plane in the live video. But if NORAD scrambled, and the fighter pilots were waiting for orders, they might have been in the area. Or not. If I’m only hearing about it after nearly 7 years…

    Read the article I linked above. In it you can see fussy photos from video clips of a plane, NOT a NORAD jet fighter. It appears to be another twin-engined commercial-type passenger plane, like the ones that hit the WTC. I was a bit surprised to learn of that, also. But, then, that’s what happens when lots of powerful folks don’t want you to know stuff–jus’ sayin’.

    I’m keeping an open mind, but for now I’m siding with SB.

    Keep that mind open, please.

  54. “St. Bif, I feel like you do, if they were this good at logistics we would have the oil in Iraq flowing our way by now. Everything blows up in their faces unless Bush and crew are a total diversionary puppet show while the real masters do their work. Not likely”–MOU

    Maybe this is good evidence that 911 was subcontracted to an abler group. Then, the B-team, C-team? (Bush-Cheney) blow an invasion-occupation of relatively defenseless third-world countries, using the most advanced military machine ever assembled. Hey, Vietnam didn’t work out so well, either.

  55. «You’re suggesting that the impact of the planes caused the towers to collapse. Yet they stood there for hours before collapsing rapidly.»

    “Hours” = less than 3, if I remember correctly. As far as the time lag goes, it was a classic example of a tipping point. The fires themselves may not have been enough to sufficiently weaken the towers, but the impacts of the planes themselves (significantly larger than a 707!) would have caused significant damage. The kinetic energy of the impact itself could have generated enough heat to ignite the aluminum of the aircraft, for that matter. Speculation, sure, but until the “planted thermite charges” theory is proven, it’s speculation too.

    Remember, it’s not just the jet fuel that was burning. There was fabric (carpeting, drapes), wood (furniture), paper, plastic (from many sources, including electrical wiring), and perhaps the aluminum of the aircraft. All that black smoke wasn’t jet fuel… it must have been a pretty toxic brew. A chemist might be able to explain how all that crud was reacting (or not), but I can’t.

    «the underlying superstructure was cleared away by undercutting charges. That’s why they came straight down, instead, and in near free-fall.»

    “Undercutting charges” hasn’t been proven. As I remember, watching the live video, the towers collapsed at a near-constant rate, not free-fall. If it had been free-fall, it would have been accelerating on the way down. It didn’t… as I recall, it dropped at about 3 stories/sec. That’s a hell of a lot of kinetic energy, considering the weight of a “solid” 30-story chunk of skyscraper, and if it was accelerating at 9.8m/sec^2 over 300 meters the impact would have made the airliner fires look like a firecracker.

    I’ll admit that I don’t know what happened at #7. I can well imagine, though, that the Twin Towers collapsing would have shook the surrounding area like a powerful earthquake. That top 30 stories hitting the ground, as I said above, was quite a jolt, and one that wasn’t designed for.

    Hm, just thought of something. If there were “undercutting charges” involved, they would have disintegrated that top chunk too. Why didn’t they?

    Personally, I think J911S and others are working backwards from their predetermined conclusion. Scientists fall into the same trap all the time, but that doesn’t excuse it.

  56. Dr D, I must disengage 911 once and for all. On my hands and knees in this field of poppies, typing with one hand and swatting at flying PO monkeys with the other. And lately there’s more of them! It’s back to the forest for me. I need some R&R. You can find me camped on the banks of the Rubicon, follow the smoke, and sound of barking dogs. We’ll save you some home brew. Go forth now. And good luck with your truth quest. Ooooh-rah Dr. Doom.

  57. FAR,

    «You’re suggesting that the impact of the planes caused the towers to collapse. Yet they stood there for hours before collapsing rapidly.»

    ““Hours” = less than 3, if I remember correctly. As far as the time lag goes, it was a classic example of a tipping point.”

    How can you make such a statement? Unless you’re a physicist or building engineer or building architect, how can you make such a claim? You have a pet hypothesis that impacting airplanes brought the WTC buildings down (also the official view), and you are making a claim about a “classic example” of a tipping point that fits your view.

    “The fires themselves may not have been enough to sufficiently weaken the towers, but the impacts of the planes themselves (significantly larger than a 707!) would have caused significant damage. The kinetic energy of the impact itself could have generated enough heat to ignite the aluminum of the aircraft, for that matter. Speculation, sure, but until the “planted thermite charges” theory is proven, it’s speculation too.”

    There is evidence for high-temperature reactions and their products (iron spherules, etc.) in the WTC dust, plus apparently (haven’t yet checked this point) unburned thermate fragments in that dust, per the Gage interview. That’s physical evidence.

    One could calculate the “kinetic energy of the impact itself”. It would involve knowing the mass of the plane, its airspeed prior to impact, (F = mv) and some factor for the dissipation of kinetic energy when fragmenting in the building. It may have already been calculated, so we need to search this point.

    Mass of Boeing 707 aircraft = 86,184 kg http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

    Mass of Boeing 757-200 aircraft = 115,680 kg
    Mass of Boeing 757-300 aircraft = 123,600 kg
    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

    The difference in gross weight between these planes is about 30% or less, hardly what I would call significantly larger.

    “Remember, it’s not just the jet fuel that was burning. There was fabric (carpeting, drapes), wood (furniture), paper, plastic (from many sources, including electrical wiring), and perhaps the aluminum of the aircraft. All that black smoke wasn’t jet fuel… it must have been a pretty toxic brew. A chemist might be able to explain how all that crud was reacting (or not), but I can’t.”

    Hey, I’m a chemist. None of the stuff you list above burns with that much heat. Just like the jet fuel, it’s all hydrocarbon fuel, solids mostly derived from crude oil (see CFN). Melting pure aluminum at over 660 C lowers the latent heat. There was not sufficient heat to burn the aluminum (over 3827 C), see http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0246.shtml

    «the underlying superstructure was cleared away by undercutting charges. That’s why they came straight down, instead, and in near free-fall.»

    “Undercutting charges” hasn’t been proven. As I remember, watching the live video, the towers collapsed at a near-constant rate, not free-fall. If it had been free-fall, it would have been accelerating on the way down. It didn’t… as I recall, it dropped at about 3 stories/sec. That’s a hell of a lot of kinetic energy, considering the weight of a “solid” 30-story chunk of skyscraper, and if it was accelerating at 9.8m/sec^2 over 300 meters the impact would have made the airliner fires look like a firecracker.”

    OK, but your opposing hypothesis must also explain all the data to be valid and thus “proven”, which has not been done. Frank Legge offers a brief quantitative treatment of the WTC building collapse speeds here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf
    As you can see from the graph therein (Fig. 2), the buildings (all three) fell at close to free-fall speeds. Follow the links in this paper for more detailed structural studies.

    “I’ll admit that I don’t know what happened at #7. I can well imagine, though, that the Twin Towers collapsing would have shook the surrounding area like a powerful earthquake. That top 30 stories hitting the ground, as I said above, was quite a jolt, and one that wasn’t designed for.”

    WTC-7 completely negates your hypothesis that structural failure from impacting planes and heat from the jet-fueled fires was the cause of the WTC collapse, since that building was neither hit by a plane nor had fires that burned with jet fuel inside. The Pentagon was also hit by a plane that day, but it did not collapse. Other buildings nearby to the WTC were also on fire from impacts of burning debris that day. None of them collapsed.

    All modern buildings are built with withstand a minimum level of earthquake shaking. There must have been a jolt, but it was certainly not up to par with severe earthquake shaking. This shaking point is also negated by the fact that other nearby buildings in the WTC area did not collapse.

    “Hm, just thought of something. If there were “undercutting charges” involved, they would have disintegrated that top chunk too. Why didn’t they?”

    They did, and the physical evidence is not one floor or even part of a floor was left intact. My guess is the towers and WTC-7 were pre-wired to collapse. Since the perps would not know where exactly the planes would hit, they had to plant cutter charges throughout the buildings. Since their detonation sequences were remote controlled, as is SOP, it was easy to set them off in whatever order they chose to do it.

    “Personally, I think J911S and others are working backwards from their predetermined conclusion. Scientists fall into the same trap all the time, but that doesn’t excuse it.”

    Here’s how the scientific thought process works. One scans the data (physical evidence) and makes some preliminary conclusions. Then, one forms a set of competing hypotheses to best explain ALL the data or facts. Yes, those writing in the journal of 911 studies and publishing in journals elsewhere have one or more pet hypotheses. Then, they gather the facts/data that support their pet hypothesis, and if there is an overwhelming amount of support for it, guess what, they win, and your hypothesis, which has been shown to not explain all the facts/evidence loses and is thrown out. Usually, this is done in a review paper (or set of papers) that has also been peer-reviewed, like the original journal contributions.

    You are certainly allowed to have a personal opinion, and mine is that you have not done the required reading, but that has obviously not stopped you from stating your opinion, no matter how flawed and speculative your thinking on the subject at hand may be. Sorry.

  58. «How can you make such a statement? Unless you’re a physicist or building engineer or building architect, how can you make such a claim? You have a pet hypothesis that impacting airplanes brought the WTC buildings down (also the official view), and you are making a claim about a “classic example” of a tipping point that fits your view.»

    What. Fucking. Ever. You’ve reached your conclusion, and nobody’s going to tell you different. I’m through. You win. FARf out.

  59. «How can you make such a statement? Unless you’re a physicist or building engineer or building architect, how can you make such a claim? You have a pet hypothesis that impacting airplanes brought the WTC buildings down (also the official view), and you are making a claim about a “classic example” of a tipping point that fits your view.»

    What. Fucking. Ever. You’ve reached your conclusion, and nobody’s going to tell you different. I’m through. You win. FARf out.

  60. “”The Pentagon was also hit by a plane that day, but it did not collapse.” — Dr. Doom

    Doom:

    The section that was hit did, indeed, “collapse” although the plane only got through the first ring–the Pentagon is built like a brick sh*thouse but is only five storeys high. As I said above, I watched it burn white-hot through binoculars later that night.

  61. EE, nice to see you!

    Doom, I sure hope you’re planning on somehow profiting from all of this.

    I’m done with this thread as well. Adios!!!

  62. Give me a break, please, Holmes. Profit? I think the biggest thing I’ve learned is quite a lot of otherwise informed folks seem to overlook important details that don’t fit the official story but instead seem to take comfort in something they see as “plausible enough”. That’s a sad conclusion to make, and it certanly doesn’t give me much hope for our collective chances in the future.

    EE, I meant the entire Pentagon building, not the portion that was hit, which BTW I’ve been in since it was rebuilt. Just like new.

    Thanks to JR for allowing us to have this little exchange. Doom out.

  63. Interesting and insightful exchange. Not on the subject – on the participants.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: