According to the New York Times’ account ,
So five of the six people who talked on the tape also gave written accounts, and those were there say they more or less matched up. I do think it’s irresponsible that the tapes were destroyed, but it seems the bulk of the information on them seems to have been recreated, so that doesn’t shout “cover-up” to me.
Yeah you guys may be right, but this all leaves a funny taste in ones mouth.
Especially since the Bush people were ALWAYS against any investigation of 9/11.
I think thats what got most people puzzled, why the Bush administration would not want an independent inquiry.
Maybe if they had been open right from the start none of this conspiracy stuff need have arisen?
In all fairness, there is a great tendency for comissions to turn into partisan snipers. Had it been run by Democrats, there would have been the very real threat of it turning into an attack on the administration for percieved errors. Had it been run by Republicans, the same charges would have been leveled at the Clinton administration.
“Independent” comissions don’t really exist. In fact, the 911 Conspiracy nutters basicly want to run any such comission themselves, where engineers are forced to answer questions that make no sense in fear of contempt.
If you want evidence, just look at the attacks some have made saying ‘the President knew!’ based off of a few hints from intelligence services that gave no indication of target or method of attack. Yet to those persons, Bush might as well have had Atta’s gaemplan.
Guess what, things were pretty open (we all saw the events of that day) and it still rose. Conspiracy cranks are unappeasable and unstoppable. They are also very much in the minority.
Mainly because they knew the disgusting facts of their failure to prevent the attacks (and respond effectively when they occurred) would come to light, specifically the warnings by both Tenet and Clarke to do something about al Qaeda that went unheeded, the “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” PDB, the CIA and FBI beauracratic bungling, poor NORAD response, poor communication between FAA and NORAD, Bush’s indecisiveness when informed of the attack, and in the immediate aftermath, Bush and Cheney’s obtuse insistence that we attack Iraq when there was no evidence linking them to the attack, etc. This stuff was a huge embarassment to the Bush Administration; of course they didn’t want it investigated.
But all that is a far cry from the absurd claim that they knew it was going to happen or, even more absurd, implemented it themselves. I don’t see any logical connection between “they didn’t want an investigation” and “the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy of the Bush Administration”.
Silk One,
I’d tell you that I actually saw flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, as I was walking to my car in the parking lot of the Navy Annex, but I guess you’d tell me what? That I’m part of the big conspiracy theory? How exactly do you think that the big bad government “got” to people like me? I’d honestly like to know.
One more thing and I’ll stop. 
I must admit, I’m still a little shocked at the buildings coming straight down.
I know even strengthened steel will buckle under severe heat and strain, not just collapse uniformly.
I know, I know you got experts that say otherwise, but for someone with a high school science education and plenty on the job experience with steel and titanium, I’m still unbelieving that these buildings didn’t buckle and topple instead of basically falling in on them selves.
I’m not saying they WERE brought down, just how people like me with little science education might be unbelieving.
The trouble with most of these theories is that they just don’t make sense.
Suppose the theory was correct that the Pentagon wasn’t hit by a plane, but by a missle of some sort.
OK, suppose you’re the cabal that planned all this.
What’s the point? I mean, why is it neccesary for the success of your cabal that the public THINK the Pentagon was hit by a plane, but in reality you hit it with a missile?
It seems to me that either hitting it with a missile and letting the public think it was hit by a missile, or hitting it with a plane and letting the public think it was hit by a plane would work equally well, and either would work much better than hitting it with a missile and faking the evidence that it was hit by a plane.
It just doesn’t make sense. We know that the cabal can hijack planes, we know they can ram those planes into buildings. So why use the missile to hit the Pentagon? What’s wrong with using a plane? How are you supposed to get rid of the “hijacked” plane and it’s passengers? Kill them and bury them in the desert? Sure, but wouldn’t it be easier to just crash the plane into the Pentagon and skip the whole missile thing?
Contrariwise, what’s wrong with the cover story that a terrorist got ahold of a missile and fired it at the Pentagon? What makes the plane crash angle so much better for the cabal? If the target is really the whole air transport infrastructure, then really, just crashing another plane is enough, isn’t it?
As for the contention that the Pennsylvania crash site isn’t a real plane crash site, I just don’t get it. Why would you fake a plane crash site? You’ve presumably hijacked the plane in some fashion and for some reason. What’s wrong with disposing of it by crashing it into a Pennsylvania cornfield? Wouldn’t crashing the plane be about 100 times easier than faking the plane crash? Wouldn’t crashing the plane erase pretty much all the evidence you’re trying to hide from the American people?
The trouble with all these theories is that they just don’t make sense FROM THE CONSPIRATOR’S POINT OF VIEW. The best way to create the impression in the minds of the gullible public that 2 planes crashed into the WTC and 1 plane crashed into the pentagon and 1 plane crashed into a Pennsylvania cornfield is to actually crash 2 planes into the WTC, 1 plane into the Pentagon, and one plane into Pennsylvania. Why would you have to do anything different than what the public thought actually happened?
It would be easier to carry out one hundred 9/11 style attacks than to create one fake 9/11 style attack. Twenty fanatics with boxcutters carried out the 9/11 attacks, Allah only knows how many people and how much it would cost to FAKE these attacks. And Allah alone knows how many lose ends you’d leave behind. And FOR WHAT?
Basically a skyscraper can’t topple over because it isn’t strong enough. In order for it to fall sideways some part of the structure has to act as a hinge or pivot, supporting the weight of the entire section of the building above it long enough for that section to develop a significant sideways velocity. No single part of the skyscraper’s structure is strong enough to do that. The weight of the skyscraper must be distributed among its entire area for it to stand, and once a significant part of the structure is compromised the remaining parts are going to overload and fail too quickly for the uneven support to cause the upper section to tilt significantly.
This paper goes into the actual physics in some detail. It’s pretty math-heavy but does demonstrate that the observed collapse progression is suitably explained by physics.
The NORAD thing is weird. There was a change a few months prior to 9/11, I believe, that changed the normal speed at which planes were scrambled. You also had Cheney in charge that day and according to Norman Mineta, he said “the order still stands” in accordance to what was approaching the Pentagon (Mineta was let go a bit after that). You also had numerous War Games going on that day in which one involved a hijacked aircraft targeting the world trade center. The Al Qaeda thing is weird since the US created Al Qaeda and Bin Laden was a known CIA asset. I mean, he was allowed treatment at a US supported hospital in Dubai and was visited by the CIA serveral times there.
I still don’t believe that if it was a collapse that it would fall straight down. You have photos of the entire top tipping to the side and then it disintegrates. A mass that large wouldn’t fall into the path of most resistance, it would tend to topple.
I would recommend everyone watch the documentary entitled 9/11 Mysteries and listen to many podcasts of Visibility 9/11 in which he interviews several people in the air force, air traffic controllers, etc. I’m not going to pretend that I know everything and neither should any others but there are unanswered questions, some fishy things going on, and the resistance of an investigation points to some involvement. Everyone going into the Bush Administration was a part of PNAC in which they said their goals would be difficult “absent some catastrophic event, like a new Pearl Harboar.” Their goals were to transform the military and become involved in the Middle East. 9/11 allowed them to do all of this conveniently in the beginning of someone’s possible 8-year term.
If you’re having trouble understanding why the buildings collapsed straight down rather than toppled over, simply consider that the forces don’t scale in the way you intuitively expect.
You’ve played with Lego, right? Stick two lego pieces together and they hold pretty tight. You can wave it around, and those two pieces don’t move. Now imagine a collection of Lego peices 10 times bigger in all dimensions. If you wave that around it seems a lot flimsier. You can see the joints sagging, you can hear them creak. The structure still stays together, but it’s a lot weaker in proportion than the two piece structure. The structure has 1000 times the weight (10x10x10), but the forces holding the pieces together are no stronger. Sure, you’ve got more pieces, but the forces holding each layer together are only 100 times stronger than before (10x10), while the weight is 1000 times stronger, that means that proportionally the bonds are only 1/10th as strong.
Now make that 100 times bigger in each dimension. The same math holds. It’s 100x100x100 or 1,000,000 or one million times heavier, yet the forces holding it together are only 10,000 times stronger (100x100), meaning it is proportionally only 1/100th as strong as the first structure. At this point the structure is so weak proportionally that if would collapse under it’s own wieght if you lifted it.
So if you constructed an exact scale model of the WTC at 1/100th the size in all dimensions, it would be proportionally 100 times stronger than the real WTC. The real WTC towers were 1,368 feet, so your model would be about 14 feet high. And this scale model WTC really could be tipped over in one solid block, because it is 100 times stronger than the real one, despite being physically identical in every detail.
But those buildings were made 20x stronger than they needed to be. The engineers stating that you could cut all columns on one side, including the corner ones, and it would still stand. It had a huge weight distribution system and the other columns would compensate. I would see if one entire floor gave out it would have a greater chance of falling straight down. But the official story says some steal was weakened unevenly and then it collapsed. If it was uneven and one side or area gave way then it would tend to act like a pivot and rock to one side.
From this picture you can see that the top topples to one side and then simply disintegrates:http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp3.html
Except that the heating element itself wouldn’t work! Good thing I’ve got a gas stove or I’d be eating salad every meal.
You’re still pulling things straight from the Loose Change playbook.
Its not so unusual since they run scenarios like this all the time.
WRONG!
WRONG!
Geez. You do realise this comes from an anonymous ‘source’ quoted in a French magazine, and there is no evidence for it, right? Heck, even Osama denied it happened, as did the base personell.
The path of least resistance happens to be straight down. The block move because for a brief moment it had a fulcrum. That fulcrum failed. What happens to a lever when its fulcrum goes away? Hint: It does not keep tipping.
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/ and realise the nonsense that comes in these videos.
Why don’t you actually read the PNAC document instead of passing on what the nutters tell you? It discusses high-tech, modern warefare; the exact OPPOSITE of what is happening in Iraq right now!
What I love is that this PNAC stuff gets quoted all the time, because it is available on the web! That’s right, the big bad conspiracy put its cards on the table for all to see! Some conspiracy!
No.
No wargame involved hijacked aircraft nor the WTC.
The fact that the US sponsored Al Qaeda’s forerunner against the Russians does not mean the US created Al Qaeda.
There is no reliable evidence that Osama was ever in that hospital nor vidited by the CIA.
The top of WTC 2 did topple.
By the way, the “vapor trail” at the Pentagon was likely caused by a damaged 757 engine.
Do us a favor and tell us the source of your engineering degree, OK? Whil;e you are at it, tell use where you got that 20x figure, since it doesn’t apply to the core columns, and only applies to liveload (wind) for the side columns.
It would. Sadly, that did not account for the core column damage.
No, it wouldn’t. You have no concept of the potential energy involved here.
Again, loss of fulcrum. THE BUILDING WAS HUGE!!
I did structural design in college for many years, using the latest design codes for steel, concrete (and wood). Nowhere do you find safety factors of 20, that’s not even in the right ballpark. “2” would be closer (and I’ve done the probabilistic derivations of the LRFD numbers).
I’m not personally familiar with the “cut all the columns” statement so I won’t dismiss it out of hand but I’d like to see a cite by a reputable engineer or architect with some knowledge of the WTC.
Yes, big structures do have a lot of redundancy built into them. WTC 1/2 could withstand the loss of a few columns, the load being transferred to alternate parts of the buildings, but there’s a limit to how much they can lose and still remain stable. Again we have to keep in mind the scale of this event. A very large amount of the structural system was destroyed - the load shifted to whatever remained in place, dangerously overloading it. Then the massive fires reduced the strength of the steel and things began to fail catastrophically.
It has to be stressed that we’re not talking about a one acre floor plan losing one column somewhere. This was massive destruction and heating.
As far as the observed behavior during the collapse, I said it earlier and Lemur866 just posted another great explanation - the size of the buildings involved is such that your experience with normal sized objects (a model, a doghouse, a car) is totally misleading. You’re talking about a chunk of building say 10 stories high, 200 feet on a side (that’s ENORMOUS), that was never designed to be tipped over, much less dropped 50 feet in the process. Think about that for a moment, what would you actually expect to happen? That section will start to shift and now things are being loaded in manners never envisioned which leads to the whole thing falling apart and showering down.
I do like the photos in your link though, they help illustrate an earlier question about what type of debris was flung away from collapse - as those pictures clearly show it’s not just “dust”, there are large hunks of material easily the size of windowpanes (I’m sure many were windowpanes) flying all over the place.
BTW, I note that the arguments continue to change as each one gets confronted with the facts; we’re shifting to NORAD now?
You’re full of shit. But instead of explaining myself I’ll simply do what you do and say WRONG.
Fundamentalist Islam was created and aided by the US.
Bin Laden was a CIA asset
Cheney and Myers were in charge of War Games that involved hijacking situations and false radar blips.
Taking a Boeing and having it hit the Pentagon while it hovers 10 ft above the ground is IMPOSSIBLE according to pilots of the supposed plane. The supposed pilot was also not able to fly a Cessna. The Pentagon has missle batteries set to destroy anything non-military crossing its airspace. Andrews airforce base was a few miles from the Pentagon and couldn’t intercept the plane.
No steel structure ever collapsed due to fire but 3 supposedly did in one day. Many other structures have had larger, more intense, and longer raging fires and did not collapse.
The 9/11 commission report doesn’t mention WTC7 which was obviously conventional demolition from the crack on the left side showing a main column being blown. And you have Silverstein saying it was pulled. And no, IT does not mean people.
And when they claimed the core was a hollow steel shaft they were saying that it was one big opening in the middle for stairways and elevators. And then you had people that died in the basement. And no, fire couldn’t have gotten down there to blow stuff up because the elevators were osygen tight and were not straight down but divided in at least 3 parts.
And I’m sorry, a collapsing building as the official story states would not go straight down, no matter what you say. Especially a building of that magnitude.
Go 9/11 Truth!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=9%2F11+press+for+truth
1st–the personal abuse thing & foul language don’t fly here, Silk One.
Rude, & a Board Violation.
2nd–Fundamentalist Islam pre-dates the creation of the United States Of America by centuries.
Read a history book, friend.
:rolleyes:
This right here is exactly why we need to pass a law against non-scientists having opinions about stuff.