Questions on the collapse of 3 buildings...

[chockalicious]

You do know you will never change their minds don't you?

Yes I know.

As I have said before I think that someone can find links to support anything on the internet. It is a matter of who seems the most credible. I think though that people tend to give more credence to the links that agree with their position.

In the Global Warming debate this is certainly true.

I think that 911 had such an emotional impact that people want there to be more of an explanation than there actually is. At the end of the day 911 was a high concept, low tech operation that probably exceeded the wildest expectations of it's planners.

It took the west into war in Afghanistan, something OBL wanted.

It gave us war in Iraq.

It gave the US the Patriot Act and got dim son Bush re-elected leaving him and his band of chickenhawks in power.

[Moon The Loon]

Have any of the theorists considered that if in fact there were charges, that they were pre-set by THEM (al Qaeda) and not the USG?

They DID bomb the WTC garage in the mid-90's afterall. If in fact they wanted to bring the towers down, the aircraft may have only been the spectacular triggers.

[Kip Powick]

Just a musing here.....

Lot of comments about the "unseen" airplane into the Pentagon. Perhaps the video(s) were too graphic when one considers that the aircraft hit the terra firma just prior to the building.

Video(s) of an aircraft impacting the ground with bodies flying around may not seem like the proper thing to make public.

I put those that feel it was all a US govt plot in the same league as those that say the US never put men on the moon, (apparently it was all done in a movie studio)........

[Azure]

Video(s) of an aircraft impacting the ground  with bodies flying around may not seem like the proper thing to make public.

Kip

Yet watching people plunge to their death from the towers was acceptable? Seeing floating bodies in New Orleans, acceptable? Live video from the Tusnami wipeing out people into the sea, acceptable? Some images will never leave my mind. From watching the one released video from the pentagon, there were NO bodies. So why not release the others?

I myself do not worry much about the truth or lack thereof from 911. However, I do feel for those who lost loved ones and believe that the 911 commission was a sham. How sad is it to not be given clear concise proof/explanations?

Step closer to home and view "Widows" long struggle to get answers into her husbands death over at the AvCanada site. And don't get me started on the Air India fiasco.

People need closure. The 911 commission did not do that for them, eight years later they still need answers!

I sometimes wonder if I would be strong enough, teanacious enough to fight the fight that these people do for their friends, loved ones, and professional peers. I remember reading somewhere that the weapons of mass distruction are not bombs, but Liberty that our fathers won, and we give up freely to preserve our sense of freedom.

[mo32a]

Have any of the theorists considered that if in fact there were charges, that they were pre-set by THEM (al Qaeda) and not the USG?

I think it was a Jewish plot to get the Yanks back on their side a little stronger.

[Guest woxof]

I think it was a Jewish plot to get the Yanks back on their side a little stronger.

It seems to me that it is a certain type of personality that is willing to believe ridiculous rumours instead of using logic and common sense for analysis.

For example, it is widespread belief in the Arab world that 5,000 Jews did not come into work on Sep 11 because they knew of the Israeli backed plot to fly airliners into the towers.

I suspect that if several of the posters on this thread had grown up in that culture, they would be firm believers in that theory as well.

[boestar]

I remember reading somewhere that the weapons of mass distruction are not bombs, but Liberty that our fathers won, and we give up freely to preserve our sense of freedom.

And that weapon was used and hit its target dead on. The "freedom" that the US now enjoys is a direct result of that attack.

Homeland Security, Patriot act etc. etc. Freedoms have been stripped from the citicens of the US and they believe it is for the best. Their forefathers fought for the freedom that they enjoyed until that day and in a one fell swoop those freedoms were erased.

While I may be tagged as a conspiracy theorist, have a look around the world news from then until now. There is more at work here than a simple cover up and in all likely hood we will pay the price.

[chockalicious]

I think it was a Jewish plot to get the Yanks back on their side a little stronger.

This is astounding in it's ignorance. Blatant anti-semitism.

[mo32a]

This is astounding in it's ignorance. Blatant anti-semitism.

Yes it is, I guess I should have put a smilie at the end of the statement, however I didn't think anyone would be daft enough to believe it was a serious statement.

[Mitch Cronin]

I know you guys all think it's nuts, but hell, these are serious questions... and many of them have no answers at all. (Chock, I've gotta say, that "debunking" site you linked has far more pure nonsense in it than most of these so called "conspiracy theory" sites many of us have been trying to get others to see!)

The biggest calamity to hit the USA since WW2 really needs serious attention. Have a look at that firefighters for 911 truth (thanks for those links Azure) site and you'll find even FEMA had some folks asking some damned good questions that were ignored....

The biggest building fires ever to happen in the US never even got the routine investigation that would happen if any other fire occurred! Open your eyes people! Have a look, at least. So maybe it's just ridiculous to think the Bush administration was in on it.... but what if they were? Would you want them to get away with it? Wouldn't it be a good idea that someone, anyone at all, gave it a really serious look?

That has never happened! Why? There's no way all the cameras at and near the Pentagon were only capable of side on shots that would only show a blur. You're damned right there's pictures. Why don't they show the world? Why did building 7 fall? There is no reasonable explanation for that!

With so many people just saying "ahh you conspiracy theorists are all nuts" it could just be that some of the biggest bad-assed criminal pukes this world has seen are laughing their asses off.

There are serious problems with the evidence versus the "official" explanation. The fact that the "911 commission" totally flopped with their so called "investigation just adds to the really bad smell of it all.

What if? ....Hmmmmm? What if? Would you want them all to get away scott free?

[chockalicious]

Yes it is, I guess I should have put a smilie at the end of the statement, however I didn't think anyone would be daft enough to believe it was a serious statement.

Fair Enough

The fact that people will selectively choose what to believe on this topic and throw logic out the window means that there all kinds of crazy theories out there.

[Cargo Agent]

I know you guys all think it's nuts,

We do agree occasionally.

IMO some of you WANT to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy in order to further validate your low opinion of the US gov't and sometimes, it's population.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The internet is a conspiracy theorists wet dream.

[Mitch Cronin]

Ok Chock... but please, tell me what logic have I thrown out the window? In words of your own, not links, where have I abandoned reason? (on this topic, not everywhere else. )... and why do you say so?

[nozel]

My two bits...

conspiracy or not, in a general sense, information can and is used to influence, manipulate, coerce, or other wise bring into line a sceptical populace!

I think the word is propaganda...

Even well educated individuals can be lead to believe plausible misinformation.

Terror, whether home grown or not, is a great tool to gain control and lead an unsuspecting people into supporting an otherwise unpallatable 'cause'.

War on terrorism yah right...

Kip, where was the wreckage of the aircraft at the Pentagon?

Where was the wreckage in Pensilvania?

I did not see any evidence of wrecked aircraft at the Pentagon (usually tail feathers remain)

[J.O.]

Mitch;

I'm not going to debate all of the merits of the truthers' arguments, but did you see the program that ran on Sept 11th on HDNET? They spoke of an investigation that was done at one of the eminent engineering schools (I'm thinking Stamford) into the collapse of the WTC buildings. They showed some CGI depictions of the effects of the aircraft flying into the buildings, including damage to beams and support structures and an analysis of the distribution of the jet fuel as the aircraft disintegrated. Forensic analysis of the support beams showed that they had been exposed to heat in excess of 1800 degrees. They put a similar beam under an equivalent load and then exposed it to similar temperatures. The beam collapsed in under 4 minutes. Not an hour, under 4 minutes. As someone who, like you, prefers scientific fact to platitudes and speculations, it was a very powerful argument in support of the commission's findings into the cause of the collapse of the north and south towers.

Jeff

[chockalicious]

Ok Chock... but please, tell me what logic have I thrown out the window? In words of your own, not links, where have I abandoned reason? (on this topic, not everywhere else. )... and why do you say so?

Well Iwasn't specifically adressing you on the throwing logic out the window but the entire truther community in general.

One of the links I posted gave an explanation of the molten metal issue. It seemed very credible to me. Unless either of us are metallurgists that I was unare of then we acceptthe info put forward by the so called "experts"

I believe that what I have read is a far more logical explanation than what you have put forward.

In another post someone is asking where the wreckage from the Pentagon is. I would think that on a board frequented by people in aviation that a question so dumb would not get put forward.

How much wreckage was left after the AF runway incident in YYZ? An incident that did not have near the impactthat the pentagon crash did. Look at any video or old film from crash scenes, many times there is literally nothing left.

[Moon The Loon]

There are a lot of issues not brought up here with the rush to conspiracy. Don't get me wrong - I'm certain there is a lot of information we are either in the dark about or have been lied to about. Notwithstanding.

Iron beams. Concrete core. Trussed construction.

Both towers were built around a concrete central core from which the trussed beams spread out and upon which the external walls provided support. All the iron beams were bathed in a flame retardant, heat resistant coating which from the engineers on the commission, was blown off a great many of the beams by the initial impact and exposive flame. Part of the key here is the truss-engineering. Once the walls were weakened at the higher floors, and with the expansion caused by the heat, the trusses lost a lot of support and eventually collapsed upon each other from the top down. Heat rises so it was probably hotter in the floors above the impact than below. In both impacts, the first being the most severe with regardst the concrete core, the core was damaged. Nobody has addressed the failure of the concrete due to the intense heat, rather many have focused on "melting" steel beams. That just didn't happen. As the walls spread due to the heat, the trusses had nowhere to go but down. When the core failed from the super-heated concrete, it was the core that dragged the rest of the buildings down as it collapsed on itself from above. The second building fell first because the impact was at a lower floor and, from the video evidence, the impact was much faster. Force = Mass x Acceleration. There was much more weight in the concrete core above the impact in the second building (first to fall) hence when the local failure of concrete occurred, the heavier mass above fell first.

This is all per the Nova explanation which to me made complete sense.

If the physics make sense, it makes a more complex explanation seem less plausible. At least to me.

With regards the Pentagon wreckage, aluminium ablaze is very difficult to extinguish. It's of the same chemical family as magnesium. Once ignited, they each burn very hot and can consume virtually everything. Pennsylvania? I don't know. But if it were shot down, there would have been wreckage similar to Lockerbie. If it went in like a lawn dart, it would have dug a very deep hole and may have collapsed into a small, tight aluminium ball which must also have burned up a storm.

Anyway - I still maintain that a conspiracy of this size and nature could not have been contained by the likes of the GWB administration.

Come on folks - they weren't that smart....

[nozel]

The question not asked in this great debate is

Why?

I never doubted WTC gone, Pentagon Damaged and a smoking crater in Pensivania

There was engine debris in NYC tower 2 impact (seen on TV at street level) there was no engine debris at the Pentagon and no debris in Pensilvania (engines don't typically melt away)

There where large pieces of aircraft debris AND a large crater at Lockerbie, so someones argument has its own flaws!

I am truly sorry for the families of those sacrificed on 9/11, they departed were unwitting pawns in a very high stakes chess match

It was a brilliantly executed plan to set fear in the minds of many.

Blatant fear mongering

[Moon The Loon]

I am truly sorry for the families of those sacrificed on 9/11, they departed were unwitting pawns in a very high stakes chess match

It was a brilliantly executed plan to set fear in the minds of many.

Blatant fear mongering

On those words, I think there is universal agreement.

R.I.P.

[Don Hudson]

Moon, fully agree; we owe the flight crews lost on 9/11 respect and memory; we owe the victims of 9/11 the same.

Sorry Mitch, I can't buy it. It's far too implausible. The chief argument employed in a hundred variations is, "you can't prove it's wrong, so it must be right". That is the main technique of all cults, religions, conspiracy theorists and snake-oil salesmen.

The notion of secret societies which "arrange" grand and and sweeping affairs in behind our backs but right before our eyes is popular because of the titilation and entertainment factor it provides but it also has some grounding in truth. The truth however, is far more obvious and boring than an exciting, cloak-and-dagger story of clandestine meetings, secret government involvement and special teams which execute Hollywood-style coups, murders, robberies, kidnappings and such.

The truth is right in front of us but we prefer to dress it up, play with it and then do nothing about it.

While I absolutely dismiss the notion that the US government is involved in a conspiratorial coverup after arranging 9/11 or at least ignoring it while it was executed by "others", all we need to do to find real conspiracies is to spend some time examining the overt, reported behaviours, decisions and actions of not only the Bush Administration, although they are the most blatant and arrogant, but all US administrations including the present one, in the Middle East, in Panama, in Haiti, South America, Africa, the Philippines and some eastern bloc countries such as Turkey and the "-stan's". The horrors done in the name of US-style "democracy" make even a momentary engagement with the notions expressed regarding a 9/11 conspiracy a waste of time, focus and energy and for some, given the powers of the Patriot Act, a dangerous occupation if they value their liberty. Next time you're crossing the US border, just try telling a US Customs officer this kind of a story and see if you retain your right to visit the US. You will find out very quickly how "free" you currently are under the Constitution.

Nine-eleven was the ruse that GWB used to invade Iraq but such tactics are not new. They are however, far more boring than an exciting conspiracy theory that actually blames the US government for killing thousands of its own instead of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of "unworthy" victims such as Iraqis, Chileans or whomever is in the way and becomes collateral damage to US plans.

These notions have been dismissed here before, being shouted down as "anti-American". Yet claiming as true a story that the US government has chosen to murder its own citizens in cold blood for the purposes of "convincing" these same citizens that executing a "pre-emptive" foreign policy towards Iraq (or whichever nation is the current target) is a legitimate foreign policy is no less an "anti-American" claim but, while far easier to believe, is far more difficult to actually prove

As Chomsky points out however, such a view is highly desirable for the population to believe, to talk about and get angry over because, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, it draws both attention and dissident energies away from the real issues and gives the population something to play with while the real business of government goes on, right under our noses. As such, US government actions which DO fulfill the notions of conspiratorial work are simply a matter of public record and not some secret nonsense about planting explosives below the WTC buildings to "convince" the American people that their government "has cause" to invade Iraq and kill its citizens by the thousands.

While Chomsky may be dismissed by many who find his work inconvenient, his research is impeccable and from public documentation. Read without the usual prejudging that arises when his name is brought up, his work and the work of hundreds of others in examining what US foreign policy really means, places any conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 etc in the category of fairytales. However, for most, the facts simply get in the way of a really good tale.

For those who wish to bother, the short quote below is some of Chomsky's thinking. Being "right" or "wrong" isn't the key here - it is awareness and making up one's own mind. If one truly believes that the US government is in a conspiracy against it's own people then the onus of proof lies upon them to provide the evidence. One cannot prove a negative of course, (prove to me that a conspiracy didnt' happen), and as far as I can see, that is the only method ever employed by those who believe that there has been a conspiracy by their government.

The real "conspiracy" and conspirators are right there in front of us beginning with GWB's stated intention to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and with Colin Powell's disgustingly credulous performance before the UN General Assembly, not with some television program which identifies strongly with thoughts and views on the US government found more in the hills of Montana than in mainstreet Washington.

Nothing personal Mitch - these are my arguments and my views and I await the independant and verifiable evidence required to change them. Here's what Chomsky has to say in an interview on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Any argument has holes but it is the character of evidence that separates such argument from cocktail conversation. Nothing conclusive is offered here, but the invitation to think, is:

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

 

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see,

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html,

or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

 

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

 

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

 

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

 

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

 

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

 

ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what's to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism ­ which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.

 

Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.

 

ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?

 

Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

 

ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor ­ which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson's seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).

 

Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

 

ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world's leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?

 

Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

[J.O.]

Well said Don.

I will add this...

Does anyone really believe that the people in the GWB White House actually had the skills it would take to have concocted such a scheme and keep it a secret? I certainly don't. Their egos would have come through eventually.

FWIW

[boestar]

Well they really didn't have to "pull it off" they had a scapegoat and the plans were already known to exist. all that needed to be done was to arrange opportunity and the scapegoats did the rest. The skill is truly in keeping ones hands clean and letting someone else take the fall.

It was documented that the FBI and CIA knew of the plans for the attack and they even had the mastermind in custody. But they did Nothing to prevent it. That is as bad as doing it them selves.

[deicer]

Does anyone really believe that the people in the GWB White House actually had the skills it would take to have concocted such a scheme and keep it a secret? I certainly don't. Their egos would have come through eventually.

GWB...

No!

However, you have not raised the spector of Cheney, and how he used his Whitehouse time to enrich his buddies at Haliburton with unbid for contracts and such.

Cheney, yup, I think he'd have the smarts. Wasn't he running the Whitehouse anyways

Iceman

[chockalicious]

It was documented that the FBI and CIA knew of the plans for the attack and they even had the mastermind in custody. But they did Nothing to prevent it. That is as bad as doing it them selves.

WHOOOOOOAAAAAA

Where is this documented.

I have never seen anything but conspiracy nuts make that claim and have certainly never seen it verified.

[boestar]

I will have to dig up the reference but I believe it came out of the inquiry thet the mastermind of the original plan was in custody at the time of the attacks and I believe still is. I am not sure if the reference to the govt knowing of the plan at the time was a conspiracy theory or from a credible source. I havent revisited this topic in some time.

What I do know is (as has been stated before) there are far too many unanswered questions. Even if the govt wasnt behind the attacks it reeks of something they screwed up royally and could have prevented if they had acted correctly to intel.

I am a naturally skeptical person when it comes to dealings with any govt. Look at the recent articles on how much the govt is spending on timmys and hockey games etc and expensing it to the dear old tax payer. While a much smaller scale it is still a criminal act in my books and nothing ever happens.