atomizer

This is embarrassing, so don't read it The OS was Win 95 I was a nOOb Started having problems with the OS one day (imagine that) and i spent weeks, on and off, trying to figure out the cause. I used to drink... a LOT. So i'm plugging away one evening, drinking sufficient quantities of beer, and this is REALLY getting the very best of me! Finally the string between normal and ninja death assign broke and i RIPPED that sucker off the desk, jerking most of the cables out, SLAMMED it on the floor and started JUMPING on it. Evidentially i decided it wasn't dead yet, so i HURLED it down the stairs at terminal velocity x 2. Me: 1 - PC: 0 Made a really funny noise when i tried to plug it in the next day

CIA closes down unit that was hunting Bin Laden Full story here UNCOVERED: The Whole Truth UNCOVERED: The Whole Truth -- This is an important documentary containing statements from several former CIA, Foreign Service, Military and other government personnel who explain the lie behind the invasion of Iraq.

@underdone continued... When the country is under terrorist attack? I certainly think so. Also, protocol was not followed. He was at a publicly announced photo-op while terrorists where flying around blowing stuff up. How in the world could he be safe at that location? Yet the SS does not escort him out. Why? Granted. This is only one piece of evidence however -- one which is relevant and which must be considered because a history has been established. We've been knocking up towers for more than 100 years and most of them have sustained fires, many major fires which have lasted a lot longer than the WTC towers and WTC 7 fires, yet none have collapsed. Of course none have been as badly damaged, though the Empire State tower was hit with a bomber at one time. However, there is little evidence in the NIST reports, backed up by assumptions, that suggests that the towers would not sustain this damage. Again, the NIST report relies heavily on a lot of fire proofing being dislodged -- an assumption which they utterly fail to support with any creditable evidence. We know that jet fuel (refined kerosene with some additives) can only burn at a max. temp. of 1800 F under absolutely ideal conditions. slicing off ~30% of that seems to be a fairly well accepted figure for a fire such as in the WTC towers and WTC 7. Furthermore there has been a history established from other building fires. Office furniture, wood, computers, carpets, etc., do not burn as hot as jet fuel, therefore only the fuel could support higher temperatures. So we have fuel, burning around 1300 F maybe, for 48 minutes, unevenly, throughout several floors. A lot of that fuel spit right out the windows. The rest, most experts agree, would've been consumed in minutes (~20). So now we're back to office furniture. However, even if that scenario is not true and we assume the fuel burned at 1800 F for 58 min., would that have been enough time to heat the steel to the point of failure? I'll vote a big fat NO on that one for a few reasons which i'll detail if you want me to, however i suggest watching the vid linked to earlier, as well as other resources in the first post. Neither the height, width nor weight of a building would excuse it from physics. There is a lot of data collected by collages and scientists which clearly demonstrate the collapse speeds were not possible. The other thing to point out here is the concrete: The majority of the concrete was pulverized into fine dust. This simply does not happen, ever, even in normal demolitions, much less to 3 buildings in one day. Look closely at any of collapse videos and you'll see a LOT of dust and debris shooting out in sort of a mushroom over the collapse point. You'll notice that a great deal of that dust is very light in color. Some of that is drywall, but the rest is concrete -- concrete floors which haven't even had a chance to be crushed to dust by the floors above. Now some may suppose that the weight of the concrete crushed it self, but again, watch that dust very carefully and you'll see that's not the case. Of course this is backed very well by 2 facts; 1) there is almost no concrete chunks near the collapses and 2) the dust which spread out over a massive area was loaded with concrete. In any "pancake" collapse i've ever witnessed or seen photographs of, even when induced by explosives, you are left with a pile of "pancakes", or floors. I don't recall the volume of concrete for both towers, but i think it was over 400,000 cu. yards and it was 3000 psi wire reinforced. It could not have become dust unless other forces were involved. Keep in mind the same is true for WTC 7. It would seem expecting them to catch one is asking too much. This is another thing i find funny: Within hours after the towers were struck, they "knew" who was responsible. Shortly after that they had a list of 19 hijackers. Where are they now? How could they possibly know who was responsible, much less in the short time they did? bin Laden never claimed responsibility until -- wasn't it years later? Or months? And those tapes and video are very sketchy.This brings up another point: Who coined the term al-Qadea? According to the research i've done, al-Quadia was coined by the government. I don't think there's any record of it being used prior to 9/11 by bin Laden. Also, the CIA clearly indicated that there was little threat, if any, of terrorist attacks until the head of the CIA was replaced (i forget his name). With the new guy in charge, all of a sudden there's a "terrorist network". None of this is proof of anything, but it is suspicious. I don't think there is a terrorist network on the scale as claimed by government. If there were, shouldn't we have a lot of them in custody by now? Almost all of the 700+ "terrorists" that were arrested in connection with 9/11 have been quietly released. You got that one right! Do some poking around and see how much of the mass media is owned by so few people. It's scary. I think that "faulty intel" is far closer to "manufactured intel". Sounds nearly impossible to believe, i know, but if you do the research you'll see what i mean. And if bin Laden can't be connected, and the war was based on that, why are we still over there? As for the terrorists that have been captured, where are they? Who was tried/convicted? Watch the William Rodriguez vid (linked to in first post). Dozens of people have testified to this -- well, not just basement, but explosions in general: You ain't seen nothin yet Keep digging. Go through the resources i listed in the first post.

@underdone continued... Boeing 767-200ER, 283,600 -- PG 20, NIST final. 600 mph. If i said 700, that was a typo on my part. And yes, that is NOT confirmed. However, since i think NIST is playing dirty pool here, i'm mentioning these claims (along with the fact they're not confirmed of course). The funny thing is, much of the documentation NIST needed to solidify their claims was "missing", such as the impact data, UL steel test data, etc.. They claim some of this was stored in the towers and was destroyed. I'll reluctantly bite, but i won't swallow. woman in holewoman in hole 2 woman and man in hole In the last one, if you look close, you'll see a man with no shirt in jeans standing with his hands behind his back on the opposite side of the hole as the woman. I think they are used in an official report as well, perhaps FEMA. UPDATE: I just found another cam angle in video. Now please understand that i DO NOT agree with some of the idiotic theories this nut attempts to imply -- like a helicopter flying by blew up the towers :/. FF to about the 02:15 mark and you'll see a person standing in the hole: 911 EyeWitness Preview of Hoboken .. 3. The government doesn't usually debunk this sort of stuff publicly, much less upload videos to YouTube/Google I would submit that as a likely reason as well. Guess this would also be a good time to mention the official conspiracy theory is just that; a theory. No one has been charged bin Laden, although the US bypassed many chances over the years to capture him, has never been caught. Also the authenticity of the video of "bin Laden" the government released in which he claims responsibility is highly disputed, even by those that met him. Tragically, yeah it is. Unfortunately this is such a crucial matter we cannot wait that long. I am absolutely certain that 9/11 was a false flag OP to facilitate the pursuit of a political agenda. If the peak oil theory is correct, all the pieces fit together very nicely. Meanwhile, people are dying and unethical corporations are cashing in. I do, yes. There's a lot of testimony that supports this as well (see the resources in the first post). As to what was used, i support no theories other than thermite/thermate at this point because this theory is pretty well supported. See: Alex Jones Interviews Steven Jones If you can find evidence of gas lines, please post that (i can't so far). I am under the understanding that all the kitchens were electric. As for fuel traveling down the elevator shafts, yeah, that appears to be a possibility. I had thought there was NO direct path between the sub levels and the upper floors, but i think i am wrong. As far as fuel igniting in the sub levels and causing a large amount of structural damage, i don't see that at all. Upstairs we had a solid object impacting the towers + fuel + explosion and yet, even by NIST's admissions, not all that much damage. In the sub levels, i think there would've been less fuel + explosion only, plus this is where the core columns were the strongest (~36 in. x ~16 in. box tubing with 4 in. thick walls and anchored into solid bedrock). I'd take a guess you could probably fill the entire lower 6 floors with gas fumes and not phase those columns.re: -- Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. [Rebuilding Americas Defenses, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pg 50-51 Foxit Reader -- free, portable, no installation, works like a champ. I assign a relevance factor/credibility level to everything i study. By it self, the above means very little, however when you combine all the "strange coincidence" and timing of events, they are worth a lot more. If you choose to investigate further, you'll find the same. More on this in a bit... No, but a phone would. In over an hour and a half, not one plane was intercepted. Now, about that lack of fighters... [this is a cut 'n paste of a post i made earlier] What the government insinuates is that a plane with no transponder is somehow "invisible". This is plain fiction as this completely ignores what radar is. Transponder or not, the target is still visible to radar. How do you think radar detects weather? A transponder is nothing more than an identity tag. I don't need to see your birth certificate to see you, it just gives me more information. The FAA was not at fault on 9/11, NORAD was. Blame was shifted to the FAA so NORAD wouldn't have to explain the details as to why they screwed up. And actually, i don't think they screwed up. NORAD didn't respond because of all the exercises that they were involved in. I cannot stress the importance of understanding what happened with NORAD enough. This is a key area that is studied by a lot of experts, and for good reason. Basically there's 2 lines of thinking: NORAD was ordered to stand-down / NORAD was confused. And then there's the official version(s): FAA incompetence and whatever other garbage they've manufactured by now. The FAA was certainly NOT incompetent. They are responsible for many thousands of flights every single day and that do a pretty bang-up job. Furthermore, on 9/11 the FAA did what had never before been done in aviation history: they safely brought down over 4,500 aircraft and did it quickly and efficiently. But then, all of sudden, they all become a bunch of idiots? Blame was placed on the FAA to shift it away from NORAD. A common tactic used in a false-flag events is to run simulations, exercises, or war games that are similar to the event you have planned. Again, this will sound very strange until you research it, so hold on to your seat... You want to blow up your train station so you can blame it on "terrorists" to rally your people to support a war they don't want to fight. What do you do? You schedule a training exercise that simulates the same event, in the same place, at the same time, except instead of an empty briefcase stuffed with newspaper, you substitute a real bomb. (Careful observers may note a certain similarity to a recent event). On and prior to 9/11, the military and NORAD and the FAA (i think) were running all kinds of training exercises (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, Global Guardian). Instead of having as many planes as they [NORAD] should have to cover the north east US, a lot of planes were sent south and north, as far as Canada, to fight imaginary Russians. One of those operations, and i forget which, was a simulated attack on the WTC and, i'm pretty sure, the Pentagon. Part of the exercises included inserting false radar blips onto the radar screens of NORAD. Now all of a sudden the "switch is flipped" and it's no longer an exercise. This created MASS confusion because NORAD had up to 22 unidentified targets running around and not enough planes to scramble. They simply didn't know which planes were the real threat. This allowed the real planes to reach their targets which they NEVER would've been able to do otherwise. This is all well documented. Some people claim that this actually helped shorten the response time, but this is absolutely false. It only added a massive amount of confusion. to be continued...

WOW! A lot of good questions and observations /* reminder to self: the next time you start a 9/11 topic, try using 5 facts instead of 105! */ At this point i'm totally unsure as to what role Bush may have played in this. I think the scope is much broader than him, or perhaps even the administration in general. That's not something i feel very comfortable in debating at this point however. My only comment would be to 'think bigger'. Not sure what you're getting at. I would think if the official story version were true, we would want to get troops on the ground ASAP. If it were not true, i don't know. To me that seems like a contradiction; if the inspectors couldn't find the WMD's, and we invaded anyway, how is that peacful? I would further reinforce by stating we still have not found any WMD's, in spite of the fact we were told by many in the white house that they knew for a fact that Iraq possesed WMD's. No, it was not and i hope i stated that earlier because my intension is not to mislead anyone. I cited Northwoods because it's a well documented example of a fals flag OP that made it all the way to the top before being killed. One plane hit pretty centered, the other was off center. I can point to a study done by MIT that shows almost all of the energy of the impacts was absorbed by the exterios walls with nothing left to seriously damage the core, however i can also point to studies that indicate otherwise. Although a great number of flaws can be pointed out in any of the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 commission reports, even NIST claims that only a few of the core columns were severed and a few more damaged. Absolutly, but this raises several questions... Attached is a graphic as in the final NIST report. You'll see they claim that 6 columns were severed and 3 others heavily damaged (this is for WTC 1). Even if this is true, the buildings could have easily withstood the damage. So now the fire: Whoops! Big problem here because the NIST reports, after switching reasons as to why the building collapsed throught the versions they released, still rely heavily on the fire to support their conclusion. In one of the reports, and i forget which, they state flat out that, had much of the "insulation" [fire proofing] not been dislodged, the towers would have remained standing. So then they "prove" that fire proofing was all knocked off of the core columns over several floors (9 i think). Problem is, they offer no evidence to back their claim. Sorry -- yes they do -- they construct a "model", if you can call it that, shoot it with a shotgun and say -- see! told ya so! Was some of the fire proofing knocked off? Sure! On ALL the core columns? Doubtful. On the back sides of the columns that got hit? Possibly. On 9 floors? I'll vote NO. NIST can not offer any convincing evidence to support claims which they rely on heavily to support their conclusion. I'm only skating on the surface here, as much of the rest of the report can be debunked with science and common sense. This docu sums up a fair amount of the inconsistancies in the NIST reports: A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan Other problems in the NIST reports are the tempatures: Out of all the structial steel they tested, they claim that only 8 pieces (5 in WTC 1 and 3 in WTC 2) exceeded 600 C (at 600 C steel loses ~50% of it's strength). This includes ALL the structural steel. Of the core columns, their tests show that none exceeded 250 C (steel loses no strength at that temp). Had the mayor not shipped 97% of the steel to Asia and scrap yards we'd know more, but, that's the way it goes. So, again, they are forced into a box to "prove" their theory. They construct models and "test" them. Since the models can't reproduce the results they desire, the increase burn times (90 minutes), tempatures and oxegen supply. When they STILL can't get the models to fail, they turn to computer models and, wouldn't you know it, after some "tweaking", the floors fail The FEMA and 9/11 commission reports are even less creditable. This goes on and on, but i'd recomened watching the above docu for a decent intro. Also see "Responding to NIST's Official "Questions and Answers" here: http://st911.org/. to be continued...

Yeah, sure. The interest is in trying to inform others that the official conspiracy theory is so full of gaping holes you could simultaneously drive drive a fleet of tanks through them. The way i try to disprove the official version is by offering a multitude of resources that debunk it (which you'll find a number of throughout this thread). I had been 100% sold on the official version after the attacks. Most people were, even many intelligence experts. They started asking questions sooner, while it took a lot of us much longer. I'm not aware of any connection. If i find something i'll post back though.

10. Peak oil is the peak of the entire planets oil production. I do not doubt that we are very close to this peak. I'm going to assume that you were referring to the so called invasion of Iraq, correct me if i'm wrong. If this was the intent, why did we not invade their close neighbor Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has around 2x more oil than Iraq does.I'm familiar with the you links you provided regarding the above. Each of those questions is an investigation in its own right however and i encourage you to dig deeper. I tend to agree that al-Qaeda was manufactured by the US government and that there is no terrorist network as the administration claims, though the threat of terrorist attacks has never been greater than it is today i think. Information from the CIA has only reinforced that. Now we have a problem; why would the government manufacture a non-existant threat? Well, this carries us right into what a false flag OP is (i'm not quite sure if you correctly understood it)... A false flag operation is a means to achieve a goal by deception. Quite often it is simply a matter of "attacking" yourself and blaming it on someone else. This rallies the people to support your goal. Let's say i have an interest in starting a war for political reasons. After setting the seeds of blame for months/years to get the peoples attention, i could then bomb the white house. Now i've really got their attention and they're really mad. I funnel that anger and at the small end of the funnel i place a terrorist network with pictures of people who look very "suspicious". The people care less about the target than they do about avanging the US, so this only makes it easier to create a target. So i have now manufactured a reason for war that will help me achieve my goal. Even though the both the attack and the reason for the war were manufactured, it doesn't matter as long as i can keep the majority of the people believing them. And if they start to sway, heck, i can always change the rules of the game -- or attack myself again. Obviously there are similarities to 9/11 in that example, but you'll also find that this example is similar to the Reichstag fire which put Hitler in power, led to a police state, reduction of freedoms and, eventually, the invasion of Poland. It is also similar in principle to events that took place in the Tonkin Gulf that got us into Vietnam (officially anyway). It is also similar in principle to what would have taken place had Operation Northwoods been approved by Robert McNamara and which would have led to war with Cuba. It is also similar to many other false flag events throughout history, the first of which may have occurred in ancient Rome. The point is, if 9/11 was a false flag event to faciliate the persuit of a political agenda, it certinly wasn't a noval idea, no matter how repulsive it may seem to many people. Again, i can only speculate, but i would think that you don't want to just start rubbing people out willy-nilly. There are many, many people and organizations fighting to expose the truth to 9/11 including government whistle blowers. I think they'd be in more danger than most, however since they already got their story out it would look awful suspecious if they drove off a cliff, not to mention the effect this would have on others trying to expose the truth (this would only further solidify their efforts). According to the final NIST report, gross weight of the 767 that whacked WTC 1 was 283,600 (it was lightly loaded in terms of passengers, luggage and fuel (~10,000 gal. at impact)). I'm not sure about the stats for the WTC 2 plane. Still, this leaves the speed problem. Although i don't have an education nor extensive background in engineering, it appears that most things that are designed with a particular criteria in mind can usually surpass expetations. By how much depends, to a point, on what it is: Aircraft have to be kept light and the line between spec and real-world is probably thin. A building however is another story. I'm not really trying to suggest anything, just bringing up a point. However, i've found very conflicting reports of what aircraft velocity was used for the towers and have seen figures as high as 600 mph: I'm pretty sure however that the 600 mph figure was not used during the design, but rather as a "what if" scenerio. re: WTC 1, NIST claims 6 core colums were severed and 3 damaged. There were 47 columns. They claim that 43 columns had their insulation stripped on one or more floors. The building did what it was designed to do, which was to redistribute the weight carried by the severed steel to surrounding steel. So now we have a big ball of fire which then continued to burn and, according to NIST and others, caused the towers to collapse (along with the damage of course). I mentioned the tempatures recorded by NIST for the steel previously. Nearing the collapse, people are photographed standing in the hole where the plane hit and i can't see any fire worth mentioning behind them, though there is fire above them (if you haven't seen them, i'll dig them up). So the steel is heated for about an hour and... splat. My question is, is it possible to heat both the outer walls and central core columns to a tempature sufficient to cause failure in an hour? The other MAJOR problem is the lack of concrete. ~110 floors, each nearing an acre in size and 4" thick with reinforcement wire. That's a LOT of concrete, yet ~70% of was pulverized into a fine dust (~100 micron in size). I have some experence in demolition and i've seen quit a few photographs of demolitions. This simply does not happen, even when traditional demolition charges are used. The concrete, for all intents and purposes, pretty much dissapeared. Why? And why did the same thing happen not only to WTC 1 and 2, but 7 as well? Then we have NASA thermal images that show tempatures in the 1000 F area 5 days after the collapses under wtc 1, 2 and 7. If the estimated temp of the fire was 1300 F, why would temps close to that, and even exceeding that for one tower, be recorded 5 days later after thousande of gallons of water had been dispensed? There should've been no fuel source to support tempatures that high. I will hesitantly agree, however if information is being witheld regarding 9/11, as i'm certain it is, it needs to be made public. I don't claim to be any sort of finger on the pulse of US opinion, but it appears to me that the 9/11 truth movement is only gaining steam as time passes. Films like TerrorStorm and Loose Change 2 have both allegedly hit the top 100 most watched videos on Google. Point is, i hope the hand of truth is forced now, while people care, then 30 years from now when no one will care. The guy that filmed it is in the public eye in some form. I forget if he's a journalist or what. I watched an interview with him and he seems very ethical. He didn't really try to prove it was an inside job, he just had a lot of questions. What was also very interesting about the whole film, which contains audio, are the sounds he recorded. The distance between the camera and the tower is known and when you remove the delay, you hear the sound of a rather significant "BANG" ~9 seconds before the collapse. This was recorded (and felt) by others as well. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. I enjoy a good debate -- besides, if i can keep you on the hook long enough, you'll start digging deeper and i'll win ya over For your enjoyment: All worth while videos: 9/11, Shock & Awe: clip from "Hijac.. Barry Zwicker: NORAD on 9/11: what .. Alex Jones Interviews Steven Jones Oil, Smoke & Mirrors.

I will link to that stuff, but i don't give it a very high score on the credibility scale. Keep digging and you'll find far better evidence supporting the government was deeply involved. Here's some questions to ask yourself: 1) who had anything to gain by this? Who is profiting? 2) who had the means and motive? 3) what are false-flag operations and how common are they? 4) is it really true that a LOT of people would have to be involved to pull this off? 5) how many corporations own the vast portion of all forms of main-stream media and who are they? 6) why didn't NORAD intercept any of the planes in over 1 1/2 hours? 7) who coined the name "al-Qadea" and when? 8) is there really a global terrorist network? 9) is there really a link between "al-Qadea" and the Talliban? 10) what's this about "peak oil"? I dunno. Don't want to kill all the tax payers? That point may be far more relevant than i give it credit for. However, several other websites and photographs and videos have "disappeared" since 9/11. Why, i don't know. Maybe some simply moved on to other things, but some of the content that was supposedly posted on some of these sites was rather damning. It is also interesting that there are no cached copies for some of these sites on Google, MSN, Yahoo or the Internet Archive. Absolutely correct. I incorrectly substitute "melting" for "weakening" myself sometimes. I don't think anyone is claiming that the steel melted, but rather that it simply lost a lot of its strength due to heat. Several problems with that: One tower fell in 58 min.. That doesn't seem like enough time to heat 47 core columns and the exterior walls to the point of failure. Also, the estimated temp. of the fires was ~1300 F and, as you stated, steel loses about 1/2 it's strength at ~1100 F. The core columns were also protected with drywall. If you read the final NIST report, you'll find that out of ~237 pieces of steel tested, only 6 showed signs of reaching temps above 600 C for 15 min.. The rest were less than 250 C (there is no substantial weakening at this temp). Don't be so sure about that before you study the facts. Most of us get our information from main-stream media and what the government tells us. I think you'd agree that our government has lied many times in the past. Is there any reason to believe they stopped at some point? Go back a few posts and find the 3 links i posted to link to a 3 part documentary. Should also add this: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv -- Obviously this is nothing convincing by it self, but watch what happens in the narrow gap between the two buildings in front of the base of the tower. You'll see white smoke rising just prior to the collapse. I could see black smoke resulting from burning JP-8 and debris (like at the top of the tower), but why white?

9/11 First Responder David Miller -- Tells us how the US government has treated 9/11's first responders.

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence source: here Poll Finds Most Americans Displeased With Congress Complete Results Poll Shows a Shift in Opinion on Iraq War Complete Results

Again i had to split my reply because of formatting issues... If you look at the photographs in the NIST report, they explain the sides bowing in actually. I completely agree, as i've seen this very clearly in videos i've seen. Now i admit i'm shooting myself in the foot here because if the sides were bowing it, this would coincide with the floor joists sagging, therefore pulling the sides in, and supporting a progressive collapse. However, i think i've brought a lot of information to light that seriously attacks a fire/damage only collapse. If you want to hear more evidence of explosions, plus watch a REALLY INTERESTING video, see: William Rodriguez : 9/11 Hero As for the top falling over, rather than vertically downward, i don't know quite what to make of that. I agree 80%. I even took that photo and blew it up and enhanced it and, yes, it looks a lot like a torch cut. Couple things about that though: 1) why would it be cut on a ~45 deg. angle? I've cut a lot of steel after a demo and unless there's other material in the way, the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. 2) the cut is not only at an angle, but is also very straight. 3) if you look closely at the top edge of the back of the beam, there appears to be a small "V" cut. Such cuts are used in demolition (i think to make sure the top part of the beam doesn't slip laterally). However, having said that, there is equally convincing evidence it was not cut while the tower was still standing; mainly the lack of rust at the cut and the way the slag is oriented. An explosion in the lower levels does not necessarily equal pressure in the lobby. That could be a reason as to why the glass fell where it did. Not sure if i'm clear on your last sentence; if you're suggesting that a hit at the top of the tower could've destroyed the lobby, i won't argue that. However, watch the vid i linked to above. Yeah, again, that's a weak point in my view. There are reports however that steel was found up to 600 ft. from the base and aluminum up to 700. A more interesting point is that there were buildings right next to the towers which were on fire and sustained MAJOR damage (5, 6), yet did not totally collapse, while WTC 7, which was a lot further away, "collapses", symetrically, at demolition speed. I'm not sure why you're pointing out fibers used in the insulation, although, it is my understanding that concrete may used as an ingredient in fire proofing. The towers had a mix of materials; there was a good bit of asbestos insulation, though not all of it was asbestos (the laws regarding asbestos were enacted during the towers construction). As far as a "steel and concrete core", that's incorrect to the very best of my knowledge -- steel only. The only concrete was in the floors (nearly an acre each x 110). The design of the towers was certainly revolutionary, no doubt there. However, the assumption that "hollow tubes" aren't as strong as traditional steel is wacky. In addition to the massive 47 core columns, the outer walls were also load bearing. If a natural, progressive collapse occurred due to fire, i could see the outer walls failing, but what about the core? I think it was the 9/11 commission report that dealt with the core by suggesting it didn't exist and that the center of the building was simply "hollow" and was used to house the elevator shafts. I haven't come across that one The elevator shafts were hermetically sealed in that there were louvers that closed to prevent fire from traveling vertically. Whether the louvers did their job or not, know one knows. Again, why was most of the steel shipped off to China before it could be analyzed? There was a HUGE fuss over this by experts and others to stop this nonsense but it was allowed to continue. Had the mayor not broken federal law (you can't destroy evidence at a crime scene), we would know what happened. I'd suggest watching the William Rodriguez : 9/11 Hero video first. You'll probably enjoy it. After that: 9/11 Truth: What Is Thermite? -- you MUST SEE THIS!!! In addition to it's outstanding entertainment value, it demonstrates what thermite looks like when burning (on the hood of a French car) and what it is capable of. Keep in mind though that thermite can be manipulated in sevral ways to achieve a particular effect. Here it simply burns, but it can be mixed to explode as well, such as for a linier shaped charge that will cut steel instantly. Alex Jones Interviews Steven Jones MIT engineer and research scientist.. 9/11, Shock & Awe: clip from "Hijac..

110 floors, each 4 in. thick and reinforced. Each floor was close to an acre in size. That's a lot of concrete. Should've been a massive pile -- had ~70% not been pulverized into ~100 micron size dust which simply does not happen in a collapse, or even in normal demolitions. I'm almost certain that the specs for the concrete are available. That's something i'm sure you can dig up yourself. As for additives, i don't see the relationship between additives, especially those which would make it stronger (mainly less water) and the pulverizing of the concrete. What caused the concrete to go AWOL is the question??? Partially correct. What the government insinuates is that a plane with no transponder is somehow "invisible". This is plain fiction as this completely ignores what radar is. Transponder or not, the target is still visible to radar. How do you think radar detects weather? A transponder is nothing more than an identity tag. I don't need to see your birth certificate to see you, it just gives me more information. The FAA was not at fault on 9/11, NORAD was. Blame was shifted to the FAA so NORAD wouldn't have to explain the details as to why they screwed up. And actually, i don't think they screwed up. NORAD didn't respond because of all the exercises that they were involved in. I cannot stress the importance of understanding what happened with NORAD enough. This is a key area that is studied by a lot of experts, and for good reason. Basically there's 2 lines of thinking: NORAD was ordered to stand-down / NORAD was confused. And then there's the official version(s): FAA incompetence and whatever other garbage they've manufactured by now. The FAA was certainly NOT incompetent. They are responsible for many thousands of flights every single day and that do a pretty bang-up job. Furthermore, on 9/11 the FAA did what had never before been done in aviation history: they safely brought down over 4,500 aircraft and did it quickly and efficiently. But then, all of sudden, they all become a bunch of idiots? Blame was placed on the FAA to shift it away from NORAD. A common tactic used in a false-flag events is to run simulations, exercises, or war games that are similar to the event you have planned. Again, this will sound very strange until you research it, so hold on to your seat... You want to blow up your train station so you can blame it on "terrorists" to rally your people to support a war they don't want to fight. What do you do? You schedule a training exercise that simulates the same event, in the same place, at the same time, except instead of an empty briefcase stuffed with newspaper, you substitute a real bomb. (Careful observers may note a certain similarity to a recent event). On and prior to 9/11, the military and NORAD and the FAA (i think) were running all kinds of training exercises (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, Global Guardian). Instead of having as many planes as they [NORAD] should have to cover the north east US, a lot of planes were sent south and north, as far as Canada, to fight imaginary Russians. One of those operations, and i forget which, was a simulated attack on the WTC and, i'm pretty sure, the Pentagon. Part of the exercises included inserting false radar blips onto the radar screens of NORAD. Now all of a sudden the "switch is flipped" and it's no longer an exercise. This created MASS confusion because NORAD had up to 22 unidentified targets running around and not enough planes to scramble. They simply didn't know which planes were the real threat. This allowed the real planes to reach their targets which they NEVER would've been able to do otherwise. This is all well documented. Some people claim that this actually helped shorten the response time, but this is absolutely false. It only added a massive amount of confusion. However, all of this could have been avoided and the towers would still be standing if US intelligence would not have purposely ignored warnings and stopped investigations. bin Laden could have been caught a number of times in the past, but the same excuse surfaces over and over, which is a "concern" for non-combatant casualties. However, when the US invades Iraq and drops bombs in the heart of Baghdad with the purpose of targeting 50 terrorist leaders and kills/cripples/wounds hundreds of Iraqi civilians in the process, they sure weren't concerned with civilians then, now were they? BTW, they failed in their objective -- on all 50 counts. Deciding a celebration is called for anyway, president Bush, who never served in the military, dresses up in his little military costume and boards an aircraft carrier and congratulates the men on a job well done. Warning Signs (277) Barry Zwicker: NORAD on 9/11: what .. Al Taqwa Bank (19) BMI and Ptech (19) Al Qaeda Financing (141) Able Danger (57) They also are heavily involved in domestic activities as well -- and long before 9/11. Actually, i'm not sure it's one, i think it's 5 missile batteries, plus a lot of radar coverage. When asked about why everything just... well... failed on 9/11: If you don't agree this was a flat out lie, i'll be happy to provide resources. I also suggest you look at Warning Signs (277) NORAD had been doing this previous to 9/11. We have a trillion dollar defense system in place to protect the US -- i don't think it's sitting there collecting dust, waiting for the Russians to bomb us. After the cold war a lot of restructuring happened at NORAD. I just skimmed through that for now, but it i find his unprofessional comments regarding Steven a little out of whack. Scientists are usually more professional than that. And to discredit the authenticity of a photo because it's out of focus??? Take a piece of aluminum yourself and melt it and see what you get.

The mods are doing some house cleaning I'm trying to persuade them to keep this open, unless it gets totally out of hand. So far so good i think. It's obviously a touchy subject, but my experience has been that usually the ones that start slinging insults come back later with a bit of a different attitude once they do some research, or, they don't answer to my challenge to provide evidence to support their POV and don't come back at all. I have similar topics on 3 other high-profile boards and they are running OK as well. I've gotten support everywhere, as well as disbelievers, and that's fine. I'm not very "socially skilled", so i'm not the best person to be debating this, but i feel that, as long as i live in this country, i have to do something.

Ok, let's say you're right, in which case you should have no problem poking all kinds of holes in these alleged facts, yes? I spent hundreds of hours doing my homework and presented a lot of information. If you're right however (and i hope you are), i'm perfectly willing to accept that, but you've got to give us something more convincing than "nothing more and nothing less". Roughly 30%+ of the people in the US, and ~66% in foreign countries polled, believe otherwise. Enlighten us. And i'm not trying to be a smart@zz, i'm dead serious. Just pick one item and go from there.

Yeah, it's wild isn't it? I encourage you to keep digging, because you ain't seen nothin' yet It is difficult to sort fact from fiction at first, but it will become much clearer if you keep investigating. I strongly recommend: http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp...ect=911_project -- this is a most comprehensive timeline of the events surrounding 9/11 based solely on over 7000 main-stream news reports, all stiched together in a way that makes sense out of it all. Yes, even the main-stream media leaked a lot of little details over the years, especially the day of, and maybe for a few days after 9/11. The problem was that much of it was either buried in another story or well away from the front page and NO main-stream media outlet has bothered to connect the dots, which is why the masses are in the dark (though i'm not so sure i can call them the "masses" any longer as many, many people are waking up). The "no-plane" gibber is applied to all 3 planes (WTC 1, 2 and Pentagon). I don't know about flight 11, other than it seems strange that an allegedly in-tact plane that nose dives into the earth would leave a debris field that stretches 6-8 miles??? I don't want to say too much on this, as whether planes, rockets, global hawks or rocks were used, i think it's pretty irrelevant. Personally, i'll stick with the planes theory at WTC 1 and 2. The Pentagon is another story and there is some pretty convincing evidence that something other than a plane hit it, namely that a 757 can't possibly fit through a 16 ft. hole without leaving all kinds of debris on the "Pentalawn" (nor was there a scratch on the lawn, which is why it's now called that ). However, i won't argue that either way. Study who allegedly flew the plane and who trained him and you'll learn a lot more. Also study the estimated g-forces (allegedly 3.5 G's - 270 deg. turn at 450+ mph. while descending 8,000 ft. -- yeah, we have some pilot here. One might think he'd be pretty good with a single engine Cessna, but...) the plane had to have sustained during final in relationship to what the FCS (flight control system) will actually allow (1.5 G's). Supposedly the FCS cannot be overridden by the pilot, no matter what. As for thermate, which is thermite with a few extra ingredients, don't laugh too hard. You need to listen to what Dr. Steven Jones has to say. He stands with a lot of other experts that support his theory, which seems very solid to me. Furthermore, he managed to get samples of previously molten metal (from a 9/11 tribute monument) and have a lab test it. The results are consistent with the byproduct of thermate. And don't forget about the piles of molten metal found under all 3 towers, nor the molten metal pouring out of WTC 1 and 2 just prior to collapse. Again, what could burn hot enough to melt steel? Actually i haven't read it (bad bad bad) but i will shortly. In order to get a grip on that article, you have to look at a few things (this is all documented): The Israelis, our "ally", had a massive intelligence gathering operation in process in the US prior to 9/11 and will not release information pertaining to 9/11 as a result of this operation. see: Israeli spies part 1 and Israeli Spies part 2 -- there is a lot more info on this as well. 5 Israelis, dressed as Arabs, were arrested on 9/11 by the FBI because they were seen cheering the attacks. They were later deported. 2 Israelis working for the Odigo instant messaging company two blocks away from the WTC were sent warnings two hours before the attack. Shortly after 9/11, Odigo was purchased by Comverse Infosys, an Israeli company having offices throughout the US and whom specializes in electronic eavesdropping technology used by the US. The secretary of Homeland Defense, Michael Chairtoff, holds a dual citizenship; US and Israel. The cover story titled "9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can't Sand Up To The Facts" in the March, 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics was written by 25 yr. old senior researcher, Benjamin Chairtoff, who is Michael Chairtoffs' cousin. So, like i said, the main-stream media is "tainted" to say the least. Also consider that, in 1989, there were about 50 corporations that owned the media (we're talking TV, cable, radio, magazines, music, news, etc.). As of 2004, that number dropped to FIVE! It's very scary that so few people have so much control over virtually everything we see, read and listen to. And then look who's sitting on the boards of those coporations and it gets worse (defence contractors and coporate oil). I think CDI had the clean-up contract, or the bulk of it, no? One of the biggest problems here is that many of the first responders were ordered to SHUT UP (and bribed according to some reports). What i'm not sure of is why, but i'll guess it had to do with, you guessed it, "national security". Now this ticked off a lot of people, including some firemen who leaked recordings to the... well, i don't know who, i just know they were released. One of the recordings is where a fireman in one of the towers clearly states that he had 2 isolated pockets of fire that could be knocked down with 2 lines. In the later stages, just before the collapse, we can see that there is a lot less flame and a lot more black smoke, which are 2 indicators that the fire was dying because of a lack of oxygen. And then there's the photo's of the girl standing in the hole the plane caused (NIST report). Not seen in many photo's is a man standing on the opposite side of that hole.It is very important to consider some other key information: The WTC site was a crime scene (duh). Giuliani very quickly had almost all of the steel shipped to China to be recycled. He broke a federal law by doing that and he KNEW he did (i think the mayor ought to know these things). Don't you think that, for future safety, it might be important to understand why the towers collapsed? Heck, as far as anyone knows, any tower may now suddenly collapse from fire. More importantly, had the steel been saved, it could have been analyzed and the exact cause of the collapse would've been found. I don't know about anyone else, but it shocks the living crap out of me that no one -- NO ONE -- in the white house seems to have had, nor do they now have, any interest in preforming ANY investigation as to the events of 9/11. The families of the victims had to push like mad just to introduce legislation to get the 9/11 Commission going and it was resisted by the administration every step of the way and it came 411 days after 9/11 (longer actually) and was set up with a budget of 3 million (topped out at 15) and was under an 18 month deadline AND it ended up being headed by Philip Zelikow. And this is, according to Bush, an independent investigative committee yet Philip, for all intents and purposes, is part of the administration and writes what later becomes Bush's preemptive strike doctrine -- which is ILLEGAL. Yeah, there's lots of video of the top part of the one tower toppling. I don't know what that means, if anything, other than some people think that if any of the concrete was not going to be pulverized, it should've been that part. But then ther.... well, you'll find out. What the NIST report fails to explain in detail, among other things, is why almost all of the concrete from 3 towers is turned to ~100 micron size dust. This is impossible. Sorry. Nope. Zero. Nada. Think about that, then tie it together with something you mentioned earlier and an explination i mentioned earlier. No, i'm saying that is accurate at all. I just linked to the article. However, given what is known for a fact in previous wars, i certainly have no faith whatsoever that the official figures are anywhere near accurate. Look at Vietnam. UPDATE: I really apologize for these long posts, but you have to understand that even though they are long, there is a TON of info i'm holding back to try to keep each post as short as i can. However... I can't possibly go on breathing without attempting to debunk comments made by the "panel of experts" assembled by Popular Mechanics in their Mar., 2005 story... The planes: There is no one of any significance that i am aware of that is claiming anything other than planes hit WTC 1 and 2 and that flight 11 was a plane (PA crash). The Pentagon is perhaps another matter. The "POD": The fact is, there is some very sketchy evidence to support some sort of explosion at WTC 2, right at the nose of the plane, just a split second before it hits. Some scream "reflection", but reflections don't show up on 3 different cameras at 3 different angles. But again, i'm not aware of any one worth listening to that is exploring this theory. I'm certainly not. No Stand-Down Order: Uh oh! They picked one of the easiest to debunk topics that happens to be studied by a lot of experts -- too bad for them. 2 ways to look at it: There WAS a stand-down order / there was NOT a stand-down order. Either one can be argued, but i prefer the latter as it is far better supported with solid evidence. A common tactic used in a false-flag events is to run simulations, exercises, or war games that are similar to the event you have planned. Again, this will sound very strange until you research it, so hold on to your seat... You want to blow up your train station so you can blame it on "terrorists" to rally your people to support a war they don't want to fight. What do you do? You schedule a training exercise that simulates the same event, in the same place, at the same time, except instead of an empty briefcase stuffed with newspaper, you substitute a real bomb. Now go research the London 7/7 bombings (and several others) and see what i mean. On and prior to 9/11, the military and NORAD and the FAA (i think) were running all kinds of training exercises (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, Global Guardian). Instead of having as many planes as they should have to cover the north east US, a lot of planes were sent south and north, as far as Canada, to fight imaginary Russians. One of those operations, and i forget which, was a simulated attack on the WTC and, i'm pretty sure, the Pentagon. Part of the exercises included inserting false radar blips onto NORAD's radar screens (i think the Pentagons screens too). Now all of a sudden the "switch is flipped" and it's no longer an exercise. This created MASS confusion because the military had up to 22 unidentified targets running around and not enough planes to scramble. They simply didn't know which planes were the real threat. This allowed the real planes to reach their targets which they NEVER would've been able to do otherwise. This is all well documented. Some people claim that this actually helped shorten the response time, but this is absolutly false. It only added a massive amount of confusion. Popular Mechanics, just like the government and mass-media, would like to have us believe that when a plane turns off it's transponder (which 3 planes did at nearly the exact same time i think -- imagine that) that it somehow becomes invisible. I suggest everyone inform our enemies right of way that if they intend to bomb us or send a missile or two over, they NEED TO HAVE THEIR TRANSPONDER TURNED ON otherwise they will slip right through our trillion dollar defense systems and we'll all die. And why would NORAD be looking off-shore when it knew this was a domestic threat? And what about the satellite systems? And the Pentagon radar systems? Speaking of the Pentagon, why didn't it's built in missile defense system kick in when the plane was approaching? Someone trip over the cord and unplug it? (BTW, my sarcasm is not directed at anyone here, this just gets my dander up ). It is also interesting to note that FEMA just happened to be training for an exercise in the area and arrived at the WTC site on 10, Sep. If you poke around, there's also quite a few more "strange coincidences", not to mention the "put" options placed on American and United airlines. Intercepts Not Routine: NORAD scrambled 67 planes in a period of about 9 months prior to 9/11. They average ~100 / yr. Average response time: ~10 minutes. Just look at yesterday; NORAD had planes over multiple cities minutes after that private plane whacked the building in NY. I'll stop there unless asked to eloborate further. Widespread Damage: Already well covered earlier. See William Rodriguez : 9/11 Hero for starters. Dozens of others available. "Melted" Steel: Ok, even i misuse this term. No one worth listening to, that i'm aware of, claims the fire alone "melted" the steel. A well accepted account is that the steel was weakened, not melted, and this caused the collapse -- though it'd be the first in history. They say; "NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F". Well, maybe so, but NIST also says that of the ~1% of the steel they tested from the core columns, none got hotter than ~450 F. Why would Popular Mechanics fail to mention that little detail? Of course had the mayor not sent everything to China to be melted, we'd all know a lot more. Now, the fact is, there WAS melted, molten steel under all 3 buildings. If the fires didn't cause this, what did? see: Alex Jones Interviews Steven Jones Puffs Of Dust: I won't touch that one. Could've been compressed air as the building collapsed. 1 point for PM. Seismic Spikes: I'm weak in this area, but from what i understand there is evidence -- not proof -- that some of the seismic activity indicates strong, ground level explosions that don't coincide with the plane strikes or the collapses. This is reinforced by a lot of other data. WTC 7 Collapse: Don't care how badly 7 was damaged according to them, it would've toppled, not fall at nearly free fall speed, in it's own basement, symmetrically, and become a pile of dust. Again, concrete does not get pulverized to ~100 micron sized particles, even in normal demolition operations. Funny how badly damaged 5 and 6 were, being they were right next to the towers, yet neither collapsed totally. Oh! And speaking of WTC 6, watch the videos of the first tower collapsing and watch what happens to the roof of 6 at the same time as the first tower just starts to collapse. Interesting. The rest of the article i won't argue with as much of it deals with flight 11 and i'm weak in that area.

What's in a Flu Shot?

Estimate: 650,000 Civilians Have Died in Iraq source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001 Way to go Bush/Cheney -- i'm sure this will help discourage the terrorists. North Korea Seeks Direct Talks with United States source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001 Corruption Compromises U.S. Border Security source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001 JUST ADDED: Iraq War Veteran Speaks Out

• NEW: Plane registered to Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle • NEW: Emergency call from plane indicated a possible fuel problem • FDNY confirms at least one person was killed • NORAD scrambles fighter aircraft though terrorism isn't suspected source: CNN oh, and thanks Cirano

@Cirano -- i sympathize with your feelings, however i beg you, all of you, to not toss around insults and risk having this thread closed. This is too important an issue and people need to be made aware of what is being kept from them. I know it's hard to swallow the insults, but that is the best way to handle such people. You have to realize that most of us have been well conditioned by the corporate owned mass-media and our government. There is a reason for everything, just as there are reasons why some people simply cannot comprehend that our "trusted" government could not possibly perpetrate such a scheme, regardless of the mountains of evidence which prove that it happens all the time. I was ignorant myself on 9/11 and, in fact, just wanted to bomb the living crap out of whoever the government told me was responsible. It took years until i woke up and figured out who was actually responsible. I thought 9/11 was pretty much a dead issue by now, but in fact it is more alive now than it ever was. The shear number of resources available for study is literally overwhelming. And now, for your viewing pleasure (perhaps not for the faint of heart): 9/11, Shock & Awe

I think the first statement is irrelevant because the towers frame (supporting members) were not concrete, nor even steel reinforced concrete. They were box steel (both the inner core and outer walls). Unless i'm not understanding something you're trying to point out, i fail to see the relationship between how concrete acts during a fire and how steel acts during a fire. Further more, any concrete building is also reinforced with steel (rebar). The hi-rise in Madrid was exactly such a structure. It was a complete raging towering inferno for ~20 hours and did not collapse. Aluminum desks were still in tact. The second website you refer to has a lot of valid math, but not as many valid points. The guy knows his math (obvious enough as he is a Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems), however what is missing is a lot of common sense, physics and the knowledge he would have had, had he read the FEMA and NIST reports. I can't fault him for the latter however, as he may have compiled his data before they were released and he didn't date his work. He may well have read the 9/11 commission report, because his line of thinking seems to mirror it. He says... Even though he supports my own point of view (and thousands like mine), i point this out as it demonstrates a serious lack of common sense. There was not anything close to 90,000 L of fuel spilled on a few floors because the vast majority of the fuel blew right out the windows and walls and burned outside the building. He also fails to mention that the remaining fuel burned off within minutes. Again, he reinforces the point of view that the steel could not have melted given the fuel source available. He may also be correct in his assumption that it is highly unlikely that the max temp reached by the steel exceeded ~750 C (1382 F). Rightly so as no fuel source available could've supported a fire much hotter than that. In fact, the estimated temp of the fire within the building was ~1300 F. Had the NIST report been available to him, or had he read it if it was, he would've learned that the highest temp. reached by the ~1% of the core columns tested was ~230 C (~450 F). Steel loses no significant strength at this temp. As any welder or blacksmith or steel fabricator knows very well, it takes a long time to heat steel. The more mass, the longer it takes. There is also thermal conduction to be considered: as you heat steel, that heat is absorbed by the the rest of the piece you are heating, requiring even more time. I doubt an army of 20 people with oxyacetylene torches, which burn at 6000 F+, could've heated the steel to a sufficient temperature, in 58 minutes, to cause the steel to fail -- on 3 buildings much less. I'll concede that the angle brackets attaching the floor joists to the walls may have been the weakest points in the structure and, sure enough, this is used by the experts to explain the collapses. Problem is, these same experts, just as Tom does, fail to explain what happened to the 47 core columns. These box columns were massive and started off at a thickness of 4" on all 4 sides and were anchored in solid bedrock. [Building the World Trade Center (1983) - Documentary] They tapered off in thickness to .25" at the top of the towers. If the floors begin to fail and a progressive collapse ensued, what happened to the columns? Why would they magically fall over, most cut into 30' pieces (sized for the trucks that would be transporting them)? Absolutely untrue. The walls bowed inward, not outward. This is clearly visible in several video's as well as the NIST reports. Whoops. He forgot about physics here. As each floor falls onto the one below, there is a delay as that floor is loaded and it's brackets fail. NIST couldn't even reproduce this in physical models (nor could anyone else), which is why they turned to computer models. Huh? Intense heat of the jet fuel? Quick ignition? What does "quick ignition" have to do with anything? He spouts off plenty of figures and formulas and then, without any explanation, tosses in "quick ignition" as a contributing factor? Even armed with a good knowledge of math, he still can't overcome what he lacks in common sense and the information contained in many official and unofficial reports. He's totally fails to comprehend, or refuses to mention, that the vast majority of the 90,000 L of kerosene blew right out the windows and assumes it somehow remained in the building. I don't think we would need to conduct a test to prove that if you pour a gallon of water on a 2' x 2' piece of plywood, most of it is going to run off the sides. He also fails to mention that the remainder of the fuel burned off within minutes. ~20 min. seems to be a well accepted time. Then he fails to explain how 47 box steel core columns could have possibly been heated to a temperature hot enough to cause failure in 58 minutes, much less what happened to them after the floors failed, yet earlier he states: And the samples tested by NIST indicate that the steel did not reach a temperature even near that. He also fails to explain the molten metal that burned for weeks after the collapses below 1, 2 and 7 and, just like the 9/11 commission report, fails to mention WTC 7 at all. Now both Tom, i, and thousands of others fully agree that there were no fuels available to melt steel, so what caused the 3 piles of molten metal below the 3 buildings that he fails to mention? You cannot form an accurate conclusion unless you consider all the data available and he left out major chunks of that. If you want a possible answer as to what caused the piles of molten metal, see this presentation by Steven T. Jones. Thanks for providing that though! I appreciate your seeking out that information and this is needed for a good debate. People need to be asking questions and seeking out answers. Keep digging my friend UPDATE: Here's a nice little clip that does a decent job of explaining why NORAD failed to respond on 9/11: Barry Zwicker: NORAD on 9/11: what ..

Well, first you have to decide whether you are willing to trust main-stream media that is owned by government defense contractors, much less Bush and his crew. If your answer is something along the lines of "no", then you have to question everything they tell us. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. Operation Iraqi Liberation, as it was first named, was launched in 2003 as a preemptive strike to stop Iraq's alleged WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program. At least that is the official version. As we all know, no WMD's were ever found, not even the ones we sold them years ago. On the other hand, Iran is actively perusing nukes but several estimates put them 9 to 15 years until launch day. Of course the government, i'm sure, would like to expedite that time line. According to what i am learning about the invasion of Iran, which is already laid out, this could be an extremely dangerous undertaking because China has interests there. China is already suffering rolling blackouts (even their GM factory has to shut down 2-3 days a week) because there is not enough oil to produce power. China has nuclear weapons... and a thirst for oil. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together. What is happening is a battle for control of the worlds remaining oil and natural gas supply. Countries throughout the world are well aware of this and are positioning their military forces accordingly. If left unchecked, several experts see this ending in a showdown between the US and China. Oh, and by the way, "you are either with us, or with the terrorists". Bush doesn't leave much room for any country who doesn't want to get involved. Abstinence = a potential target in this illegal, open ended war.

The most powerful video i've seen to date... September 11th the Con the Conspiracy the Cover-up of 911 part I September 11th the Con the Conspiracy the Cover-up of 911 part II

@DL - i had to break up my reply. the length had something to do with the formatting problem. If they are not generally reputable, then they generally lie. What evidence do you have to supports this? You're missing the point which is that the invasion of Afganistan was based on the alledged fact that Usama bin Laden orchristrated the attacks. If this was a fact, why was he, and why is not currently wanted for anything connected to 9/11 by the FBI? FBI page: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm re basment explosions: Totally incorrect. The main stream media hasn't reported it. William Rodriguez presentation Pt4) Pre Collapse -- Sub Basement Explosions bombs wtc basement Pt7) The shifted slurry Walls - retaining walls of basement waitness to explosions/basement collapse (911 mysteries pt2) Dozens of first responders and eyewitnesses reported the same thing. This was all kept out of the 9/11 commission report. There are several videos that clearly show, both in video and audio, that at least one major explosion occured in the besements ~9 to 12 seconds before the collapses, but they're not going to seek you out -- you have to do the research. There's also sisemic evidence that suggests the same. You also made a point that you were suprised that the pile was so small. It is interesting you mention that, because many experts had the same question. When the buildings collapsed (including 7), the pile was actually smaller than it should have been. The reason is that almost ALL of the concrete was pulverized into dust ~100 microns in size (which, according the EPA, was safe to breath of course, along with the asbestos). This is also completely impossible in a natural collapse. Demolition is something i have some expierence with and i don't care how high the towers were, concrete does absolutly not ever turn to dust, be it freshly cured or 50 years old. This is even more true with WTC 7, which did the same thing. The only explanation i have been able to find that would cause this is an immediate and drastic rise in temperature. Such a condition would vaporize the moisture in the concrete and cause it to literally explode. Also, buildings very rarely, if ever, simply fall into their own basements -- they topple -- yet 3 steel buildings, for the first time in history, all collapsed, due to fire, all in one day, and all symmetrically into their own basement. In the case of 7, you can actually see the "kink" in the roof prior to collapse. Again, this is typical demolition stuff (the kink is the result of inner supporting members being cut first to facilitate an implosion, rather then an explosion). I'll be glad to entertain any reasonable explanation offered to any of the points discussed, but speculation doesn't cut it. Explain to me why Atta would carry with him his will (convenient for the government)on a mission to fly a plane into the WTC. Would you? Explain why a bunch of terrorists so dedicated to their religion would be seen getting drunk and paying for lap dances in a stripper club a day before the attack and, again, conveniently enough for the government, leave a copy of the Coran and their business cards behind. Explain to me how intelligence form Egypt, Argentina, Morocco, Brittan, Germany and Russia all warned the US about impending attacks, including "planes" and "buildings" and "New York", yet the administration says "i don't think anybody could have imagined.......". Explain the 6-Aug PDB titled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". Explain the long and well known relationship between the Bush and bin Laden family and why that has no bearing on 9/11. This stuff is hard to swallow and i know it is. It is not at all comfortable for anyone. There are times when i swear that i do NOT want to be right, especially with this stuff. But once i started investigating, i went at it tooth and nail and i did not care where the chips fell. I wanted the TRUTH. Period. I went at it with the belief that the official story was at least close to the truth, but i was forced to change that belief as the mountains of evidence rolled in. It seems impossible that this can be kept under cover, but where do most of us get our news? CNN? FOX? AOL/Time Warner? When you learn that these corporations are owned by massive government contractors and have members of corporate oil sitting on their boards, then you understand exactly how a lid can be placed on this. The whistle blowers are coming out of the woodwork, but you have to find them, because you're not going to hear about it on CNN when the most important thing they are covering is Michael Jackson's sexual preferences. If you have evidence (not speculation) that can compromise anything i have stated, then please let it be known. If not, then i suggest to all of you; please research this on your own. Read the NIST report. Find out why the EPA said the air was safe. Learn about false-flag operations and why what happened on 9/11 is nothing out of the ordinary. Watch the 3 videos linked to in the first post. I'm sure we can ALL agree that the government has lied to us many times in the past. Is there any reason to believe they never will again?

had to split this into to posts because of size... Granted, that's a weak point on my part because i haven't studied it well enough. Still, if you look at the maps of planned oil lines and the fact that several bases line up exactly with them, that should provoke the question why. Reason being that the lines could have never have been built without the war and that should provoke more questions. re: nuclear weapon discussions: The point is that the plans were drawn up at all. Why? What does that have to do with the fact Jeb Bush was in charge of security of the WTC and Dulles? That is a simple fact that is easily enough verified. It is also simple enough to verify that his contract ended on 9/11.Error on my part. It was Marvin Bush, not Jeb. re: NORAD Not true. The FAA, not NORAD, was responsible and did in fact order all planes grounded. NORAD was responsible for intercepting the flights which they do all the time... except on 9/11. If you research this, you'll find that NORAD was in the midst of several war game exercises, one of which involved flying planes into the WTC's and the Pentagon, but of course, as Bush says, "i don't think anyone could have imagined it". If the administration couldn't have imagined such an attack, then why were they preparing for it? The answer as to why they were preparing for it, and especially why they were running so many exercises on that particular day (much of the military, not just NORAD), is simple enough if you look around. Pretty wild that a guy in a cave with a computer can defeat our trillion dollar defense systems, 4 times in one day, without us ever knowing, don't you think? The WTC towers were designed to take the impact of a fully loaded 707 (biggest commercial airliner at the time) at any point, including the base. If you do the research, you'll find that the difference between a fully loaded 707 and the lightly loaded 767's that crashed is not all that great. Furthermore, and i haven't confirmed this yet, evidentially the experts (designers and others) are claiming that the WTC towers could have sustained multiple hits, not just one. There were 2 load bearing parts of the towers; the core and the outer walls. Even the NIST report tells us that probably only a few out of the 47 core columns were damaged.The fire protection is irrelevant because there was not enough heat to compromise the steel. The fire burned at an estimated temp of 1,300 F. NIST tested about 1% of the steel (because Giuliani shipped the rest to Japan to be melted down, which was completely illegal as this was a crime scene) and found that the highest temperature reached for the members they tested was ~450 F (the paint was still in tact). The vast majority of the jet fuel, which is nothing more than refined kerosene, burned off outside the towers. The rest burned off within minutes. Also worth mentioning is the fact that 3 million dollars (topped out at 15) was appropriated for an investigation in to the largest loss of life on our soil since the Cival War and it took 411 days for that to happen. Why? Why was something like 40+ million spent on Clinton/Lewinski, yet only 3 for 9/11? Why did the white house not want any investigation at all? Why did the VICTIMS have to push for the 9/11 commission? If you do some research on who Bush first appointed to head it you'll find it was the highly controversial Kissenger -- the master of deception in Vietnam. When asked by the "Jersey girls" if he wanted to tell them anything about his clients, they said he grew uncomfortable. When asked if one of them was bin Laden, they said he nearly fell off his couch. Kissenger was forced to resign and was replaced with the same person that wrote (forget his name) what was to become Bush's preemptive strike policy. Gee, i wonder if that could be considered a conflict of interest? Also, the families wanted to have one family member on the commission. Request: DENIED. Why? Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that the towers were losing money because many floors were unoccupied and this trend was continuing (the buildings were never designed with massive computer networks in mind). Also, the fire proofing was asbestos and the Port Authority was under increasing pressure to remove it. One contractor provided an estimate of over 1 billion for the job. Yet Larry Silverstien buys the lease for the whole complex, a 200 million initial investment, 6 weeks before the attacks, has special terrorist attack clauses added, and insures it for 3.5 billion, which he was paid (he tried to get 7 billion, claiming each attack was a separate incident). Incidentally, that was the first time ownership of the WTC had ever changed hands. Incredible coincidence? Is it also incredible coincidence that, if you name was Larry Silverstien on 9/11, ALL of you building collapsed and you got the insurance? But if you name was different, and even if you had a building right next to Larry's, you were out of luck because you building stayed standing. After the initial fire subsided, there were 2 isolated pockets of fire reported in one of the towers (i forget which). The audio recording of the fireman who reported this is readily available. Much more evidence on this would be available had they not been ordered by the white house to shut up (eidentally the status of the fires and dozens of reports of bombs has something to do with national security now days). Photographs were taken showing people standing in the holes where the planes went in. Read the NIST report (it contains these photographs as well). Where was the massive fire after the initial fuel burned off? No, that is estimated internal temp. External is irrelivent unles it were sustained, which it was not. If the max temp of JP-8 is 1,800 F, how can anything possibly burn any hotter? The only materials available were typical construction materials. These were class A buildings, so there was no gas or other fuels (kitchens were all electric). The only other source of fuel is the basement where disel fuel was stored, however the elevator shafts were hermitically sealed just for such an emergency, so burning jet fuel could not have spilled into the basement. Again, the max temp mesured by NIST for the steel they tested was ~450 F. Steel loses no significant strength at that temp. Many other hi-rise buildings sustained higher tempatures for much longer periods -- none have collapsed. Hi-rise in phili burned 18 hours. Windsor, 24 hrs. Many others as well. Free fall speed for the towers would be ~8 seconds. One of the towers collapsed in 9.2 and the other in just over that. WTC 7 collapsed in ~6. The fact that a building cannot fall at near free-fall speed is dictated by simple high school physics. The buildings collapse accellorated because the remaing structure below the collapsing point was comprimised before the collapsing debris reached it, just as is done in a classic demolition. As for the "squibs" theroy -- windows blowing out below the collapse -- i strongly agree that could have been nothing more than compressed air as a result of the collapse. However, if you watch video of building 7, the same thing occures just before the collapse and the detonations move sequentially UP, not down. What happened to 7? Again, simple rules apply: The only fuel available for the fire is what fuel was available -- construction materials, diesel fuel (in the basement after the collapse), plastics, office furnature, paper, etc.. Days, weeks and even months after the collapses, extrodiornarilly high tempatures were recorded. There was MOLTEN METAL found at the base of 1, 2 AND 7. Why? What burned hot enough to melt steel? JP-8 surly cannot do that, nor can office furniture, plastics, wood, or any other construction material. So what was it?

i'd actually prefer a slightly longer version -- one where you provide evidence that anything i've presented isn't accurate.