I've got some Sub-Prime SIV's I'd love to unload on you. Oh and some Enron stock. But I guess that was just incompetence. Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag event per Robert McNamara. Operation Northwoods created by the pentagon in the same time frame came up with a variety of false flag ideas to get us to invade cuba including blowing up commercial jet liners. All of this is now public record. Not saying 9/11 is a false flag I'm saying the government has done them and has planned to do them including the killing of non-millitary civillians. Some say the Lusitania was a false flag event. It's reasonable to be suspicious not as reasonable to make conclusions based on suspicion.
Please learn to read. I didn't say that buildings collapse by themselves. I said that it doesn't require carefully controlled demolitions to cause a building to collapse "symmetrically." Even a non-controlled demolition/collapse can cause a building to fall the way WTC7 did. I obviously wasn't arguing that the building's structural support was strong. I was pointing out that the way it collapsed doesn't imply that it was brought down with carefully controlled demolition. It could very easily have been brought down by a quick demolition (for example, by the fire fighters who were asked to bring it down), or by the fires and debris undermining its support. The symmetric way it fell is perfectly possible even with a quick, non-careful demolition/collapse. So your assertion that it could only have been the product of a months-long prepared demolition isn't correct.
This is the exact reason that I never got caught up in any of the conspiracy theories. I don't care what the fuck kind of "evidence" the crack pots develop to support their stance. The bottom line fact is that a conspiracy this big would stand zero chance of not leaking, getting out, etc...etc...it's just not possible. End of story. End of conspiracy.
I work in commercial real estate. I can tell you without a doubt that structural engineer should be damn proud. Those buildings acted exactly as they should. Here's the basic process: 1. The impact and explosion blew off the protective coating on the steel. Sadly, early 1970s technology with the stickiness of fire retardants isn't the same quality it is today. 2. The steel superstructure (an exterior frame with a strong core--the Twin Towers had really open floorplans) weakened from the ensuing fire. 3. One of the floors' structural members failed, causing a pancaking effect. The shock from the weight of the floors on top collapsed each succeeding floor. If the building was to be demolished, it wouldn't have been from the top down, but from the bottom up. In other words, the explosions would have been triggered at the base of the building, not 70+ floors up.
You do realize that for example many people in Germany had no idea that the Nazi's had extermination camps until after the war right? I'm just saying your reasoning is not sufficient to rule it out. Debunking sites have solid reasoning why 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy. Thinking that something big = impossible is dangerous thinking or rather lack of thinking because it is dismissed right away. Also people with good intent who are misled will on occasion trust in authority and aid them in breaking the law in error. For instance in Guantanamo the soldiers followed orders and aided in the coverup (ongoing) of the torture that occurred there. They may have very well believed they should aid in things that are illegal because they were misled. Another example of a VAST conspiracy is the Chinese governments extremely successful Psy-ops campaign on their own people to get them to believe the government is helping them. Meanwhile the great firewall keeps out information about Democracy etc. Many people in China are not aware of vital things because their government keeps it from them. Again, my presence in this thread is merely to debunk the thought "Rich people and governments don't conspire due to difficulty/impossibility/superior morals". It's dangerous thinking and allows large scale fraud such as we are seeing blow up in the finanacial industry to occur because no one does important questioning.
But George W Bush was stupid.......so I've been told. So, he's either stupid or a complete and utter evil genius. I say neither. I just don't buy it. At all.
That's a straw man. I can't imagine that anyone thinks that rich people or governments are incapable of acting immorally. Ed O.
You missed my point. Again I'm not saying 9/11 is or is not an inside job. Frankly all the talk on both sides seems incomplete and I'm tired of researching it. Neither side's conspiracy theory makes any sense to me (government complicity or a few dudes with box cutters defeating what I thought was the greatest millitary/intelligence apparatus ever constructed) both are conspiracy theories. My point was you shouldn't dismiss conspiracy theories or else you miss real ones like the Mafia and things like corporate cover ups of environmental crimes or labor exploitation (I'm talking third world not american wages being low I'm talking lots and lots of deaths). I'm also saying don't rule out government conspiracies they can and do happen Watergate and Iran Contra and likely not all are found out about. Some say we still don't know the extent of Iran Contra. Probably neither side will ever be able to convince the other about 9/11 but for godsake don't stop thinking and questioning especially those in power. For instance if you are a republican you can should question the Bush years record and if you are a democrat you can and should question Obama.
Exactly. The floors below impeded the fall, like friction. That would have reduced the acceleration due to gravity from 9.8 m/sec/sec to something less. As evidenced by a few second differential for the building to fall. It did fall faster and faster as it collapsed (it being either tower).
If the Bush administration was good enough to pull off something this huge, you'd think they'd have planted and found WMDs in Iraq. The latter would have been much easier and would have taken basically a couple of guys. If anything, the administration seemed willing to let the embarrassing truth out regardless of the political fallout.
Wait a minute what political fallout? You mean like bulldozing the Patriot Act through congress? Going to war on Saddam continuously invoking 9/11, wireless wiretapping, torture in Guantanamo, Trillions spent on wars and/or to no-bid contracts and/or lost in Iraq etc. etc. etc. 9/11 gave Bush so much political capital it's ridiculous. Remarkably, to begin with very few people were willing to challenge them on virtually anything even though they had just overseen the worst intelligence/defense failure possibly in world history. So far from political fallout they gained tremendous political power undreamed of by previous US presidents. Bush's initial approval rating after 9/11 was stratospheric! 9/11 may not have been an inside job but there is NO QUESTION it gave Bush unprecedented power and clout for a year or two afterwards.
That "debunking" article was actually written before this new evidence came out. So it is not a rebuttal to that. Highly trained scientists published did a through analysis and published the findings in a peer reviewed journal. But in regards to 1,3-DPP, why do you say that is a "likely conclusion"? That chemical had never previously been detected in ambient air sampling. EPA's Eric Swartz said it's presense , "dwarfed all others". The EPA had sampled the air of many different sites which also had computers, and had never sampled anything like that before.
Because there were no WMDs found, Bush has been accused of lying us into war. It's a huge black mark on his record - that's political fallout. And the Republicans lost control of the house, senate, and white house. People scrutinized his speeches and found 14 words that meant more in the media than countless paragraphs about liberating Iraq, ending the regime of torture and abuse, etc. I think he had bigger ambitions to solve really big problems facing the nation, including fixing social security (he was able to get a massive drug program through congress for medicare). If anything, 9/11 bought him a short reprieve from the constant assault he was under since the 2000 election. You might remember people called him illegitimate and worse. Even some of my better friends here liked to post pictures of him next to a picture of a chimp, and that sort of thing.
Ah you are talking about the WMD not intel/defense lapses around 9/11. OK I will grant you that they could have possibly planted WMD's if they had wished to do so. They might have had such a lie examined by the international media who were on his side about 9/11 but not so much about the Iraq invasion. The torture thing ended up ringing fairly hollow due to Abu Ghraib, Bhagram and to a lesser extent Guantanamo. I have no idea what transpired in the Black sites in Eastern Europe or (shudder) the rendition so Syria and Egypt. By the way it's not like the Right Wing kept the kid gloves on with Clinton by any stretch. P.S. In retrospect especially I hate Clinton and Bush. Frankly I haven't respected a president since Eisenhower and possible Kennedy.
I see a lot of people here simply repeating the same illogical arguments about how the buildings fell. But the fact is, there is absolutely no model that can account for how they fell. Even the NIST didn't have one. We're past all that now! They have found un-reacted thermite at ground zero.
Highly trained, perhaps, but apparently at least some of them were highly trained in fields rather irrelevant to the subject at hand. Sociology and Psychology, for example. And several of them are long-time active 9/11 cranks. And the findings were published in a backwater journal w/o the knowledge of the editor... Or so says this link, anyway. barfo
IIRC, thermite is nothing more than a mix of 2 types of metal (iron and aluminum??) in powdered form. Sweep up enough dust from any demolition site, and I would think you would get the same positive reading. I also don't get the reference in the article to "super thermite". They describe this mystery substance as highly engineered......but isn't that like talking about highly engineered mud? When you have a compound composed of a mixture of *two* substances, how highly engineered can it be?
Seriouis question. You say no model can account for how the towers fell. What about the incident in California a few years ago, where a burning gasoline tanker caused the collapse of the freeway column it was next to? If a regular gasoline fire can collapse a steel and concrete freeway, why can't an aviation fuel fire collapse a steel and concrete building? Sorry, but I'm not convinced these arguments prove anything beyond a possible conspiracy to cover-up substandard construction.
