Was 9/11 an inside job? [Archive] - Debate Policy

Sertes

10-06-2007, 11:11 AM

Because the official version doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny in a number of critical issues.
Any conspiracy is composed of three factors: planning, execution and coverup.

Planning:
- (Historical precedents such as the Tonchin Bay incident and Operation Northwoods)
- The documents “Project for a New American Century” and “Rebuilding America Defenses”
- Foreknowledge by internal (the Able Danger case) and foreign secret services
Execution:
- The collapse of the three WTC highrise buildings
- The missed intervention (stand down order)
- AA77 and the damage at the Pentagon
- UA93, the fake phone calls and the missing wreckage
Coverup:
- active propaganda from Purdue University and passive propaganda from Popular Mechanics
- silencing the first-hand testimonies on mass media
- straw-man arguments on the Internet

While there are historical precedents, and unanswered warnings of the attacks, I would like to skip that part at this time, as there are bigger issues that are both necessary and sufficient to prove the inside job. So I’ll concentrate on the execution and the coverup, as the 9/11 Commission Report 8which is the main document for the official version) fails to answer in many critical points, as do the former study, FEMA report, and the last one, NIST NCSTAR1.

The Collapses
189 real-life architects and structural engineers, all listed with name, surname and credentials here (http://www.ae911truth.org) ask the following question:

Why the three high rise “collapses” of 9/11 all exhibit more than ten elements in common with explosive demolitions while showing none of the elements of gravitational collapses?

We all saw the planes hit WTC1 and 2 and later assumed their collapse was caused directly or indirectly by the planes hits (it was not a direct consequece of plane hits because then the building would have collapsed immediately, and it was not a direct consequence of jetfuel burning because it all burned out within the first 6-10 minutes, while tower 2 collapsed after 50 minutes).
All the three official studies (FEMA report, 9/11 commission report, and NIST NCSTAR1) cover extensively the hits and the start of the collapse. That is the perfect straw-man argument, the temperature of the fires. But they fail to explain the collapses themselves. They cannot explain the presence of pools of molten metal found by workers as much as 40 days after 9/11 while excavating the rubble, in the basement of all three buildings. They cannot explain how the “gravitational collapse” can proceed through the path of most resistance, at free fall speed and with complete pulverization of all concrete and contents. There’s simply not enough kinetic energy stored as potential energy to do that. Explosives, on the other hand…

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/explo2.jpg

WTC7
Of the three studies FEMA report never metions WTC7, and even the 9/11 Commission Report doesn’t mention it at all! Only the latest study, NIST NCSTAR1 acknowledges the existence of WTC7, but it fails to explain its collapse. Remember that never in history before nor after 9/11 a steel framed building has collapsed due to fires alone.

Even former head of NIST fire department James Quintiere recently asked for a peer review of NIST work, and asked NIST to answer the questions regarding WTC7 collapse.

http://www.rushtrader2112.com/bush/wtc7kf5%5B1%5D.gif

The missed intervention
After the second hit in the twin towers it was clear to everyone that america was under attack. How flight AA77 was able to fly undisturbed for 20 minutes straight toward Washington D.C., circle it, and strike the Pentagon? (the Pentagon!!)
The official version tells us that FAA noticed NORAD too late, Dick Cheney reported he arrived on the white house PEOC (presidential emergency operative center) just after AA77 hit the pentagon, and it’s common understanding that no one was following the plane on radar before that because hijackers turned down the transponder.
However the transponder only gives a secondary radar signal, it’s used to provide name, speed and altitude to ground control, a plane do not go “stealth” by disconnecting the transponder, the (primary) radar signal is still there!
And the rest of this is contadicted not by a random conspiracy theorist, but by former Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta, in his famous deposition before the 9/11 commission that wasn’t reported in the 9/11 Commission Report

M3q0uZAEd5w

The pentagon
Even wheter the real AA77 hit the pentagon or if it was something smaller, like a cruise missile or a drone plane painted as an AA flight, is debatable. The hole in the pentagon face is way too small to accommodate the fuselage of a 757-223. The rear tail damage on the face of the pentagon is missing, in its place there are still the windows which allegedly survived an hit with a 100 ton plane hurled at 500mph. Both engines, solid blocks of 4 tons, are missing, they cannot be inside because there’s no hole for them to pass, and the lawn outside the pentagon is intact. They don’t burn at buning jetfuel temperatures, they’re designed to do so. The circular punch-out hole in the third ring of the Pentagon is the same size of the other hole, but no piece is visible there, too. So that’s more compatible with a blast from something like a cruise missile rather than with a commercial airliner hit.
Also, the most watched building on earth had 50 cameras pointed on it from the side the plane came, FBI confiscated all 50 videos within the hour, even those from the gas station and the hotel across the road, and in six years the only one video released never shows AA77.
The camera from highway traffic control has a frame rate and an angle that it would have recorded AA77 in his trajectory for sure. This is the answer to a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) by FBI agent Maguire:
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/3-Pent/blackout/mcqure05b.gif
Yes, all the cameras started filming AFTER the hit.

UA93
Flight UA93 hit a field because the passengers overrun the hijackers and they lost control of the plane. But its hole is almost empty, no rear tail, no wings, no luggage, no passengers, all pieces are small as confetti AND scattered over a 5 miles radius area.
That kind of plane didn’t have phones on board at the time, and it’s proved cellphone don’t work at that altitude – cell towers give cover in a horizontal circular area, not spheric.

Alleged UA93 after the hit with the ground
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/4-UA93/fattrisc/exploreo.jpg

jimnyc

10-06-2007, 01:51 PM

189 real-life architects and structural engineers, all listed with name, surname and credentials here ask the following question:

Why the three high rise “collapses” of 9/11 all exhibit more than ten elements in common with explosive demolitions while showing none of the elements of gravitational collapses?

We all saw the planes hit WTC1 and 2 and later assumed their collapse was caused directly or indirectly by the planes hits (it was not a direct consequece of plane hits because then the building would have collapsed immediately, and it was not a direct consequence of jetfuel burning because it all burned out within the first 6-10 minutes, while tower 2 collapsed after 50 minutes).
All the three official studies (FEMA report, 9/11 commission report, and NIST NCSTAR1) cover extensively the hits and the start of the collapse. That is the perfect straw-man argument, the temperature of the fires. But they fail to explain the collapses themselves. They cannot explain the presence of pools of molten metal found by workers as much as 40 days after 9/11 while excavating the rubble, in the basement of all three buildings. They cannot explain how the “gravitational collapse” can proceed through the path of most resistance, at free fall speed and with complete pulverization of all concrete and contents. There’s simply not enough kinetic energy stored as potential energy to do that. Explosives, on the other hand…The building was designed to withstand beyond hurricane forces and even in fact designed to withstand a plane crashing into it. So no, they wouldn't have simply collapsed immediately. The collapse was due to a ton of damage being done as a result of said crashes and the ensuing fires, explosions and deterioration of the steel beams that took place.

The NIST report clearly showed that the planes sliced through the utility shafts of the building allowing fires to become widespread throughout the building. The initial blast with the jet fuel involved was powerful enough to carry the force and flames all the way to the lobby of the building where it blew open elevator doors and broke windows in the lobby.

Here's the NIST explaining the "molten steel":

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

And another page discussing the molten steel:
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Here's the NIST once again, explaining the collapse and path of resistance:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Of the three studies FEMA report never metions WTC7, and even the 9/11 Commission Report doesn’t mention it at all! Only the latest study, NIST NCSTAR1 acknowledges the existence of WTC7, but it fails to explain its collapse. Remember that never in history before nor after 9/11 a steel framed building has collapsed due to fires alone.

Even former head of NIST fire department James Quintiere recently asked for a peer review of NIST work, and asked NIST to answer the questions regarding WTC7 collapse.While it may be true that a steel framed building has never collapsed due solely to fire before, how many in history have received the amount of structural damage that WTC7 did as a result of the collpases of WTC 1&2? How many buildings in history have been left burning for so many hours with such severe structural damage from another building collapse?

Although you may not like Popular Mechanics, their story is supported by experts and cannot be disputed:

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

After the second hit in the twin towers it was clear to everyone that america was under attack. How flight AA77 was able to fly undisturbed for 20 minutes straight toward Washington D.C., circle it, and strike the Pentagon? (the Pentagon!!)
The official version tells us that FAA noticed NORAD too late, Dick Cheney reported he arrived on the white house PEOC (presidential emergency operative center) just after AA77 hit the pentagon, and it’s common understanding that no one was following the plane on radar before that because hijackers turned down the transponder.
However the transponder only gives a secondary radar signal, it’s used to provide name, speed and altitude to ground control, a plane do not go “stealth” by disconnecting the transponder, the (primary) radar signal is still there!
And the rest of this is contadicted not by a random conspiracy theorist, but by former Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta, in his famous deposition before the 9/11 commission that wasn’t reported in the 9/11 Commission ReportYes, the primary radar is still there, along with the radar of a few thousand other planes in the air at the time. Kinda hard to pick out a specific plane without a transponder amongst thousands of other "blips" on the screen.

As to the amount of time it took the fighter jets to get involved in intercepting the planes:

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

Even wheter the real AA77 hit the pentagon or if it was something smaller, like a cruise missile or a drone plane painted as an AA flight, is debatable. The hole in the pentagon face is way too small to accommodate the fuselage of a 757-223. The rear tail damage on the face of the pentagon is missing, in its place there are still the windows which allegedly survived an hit with a 100 ton plane hurled at 500mph. Both engines, solid blocks of 4 tons, are missing, they cannot be inside because there’s no hole for them to pass, and the lawn outside the pentagon is intact. They don’t burn at buning jetfuel temperatures, they’re designed to do so. The circular punch-out hole in the third ring of the Pentagon is the same size of the other hole, but no piece is visible there, too. So that’s more compatible with a blast from something like a cruise missile rather than with a commercial airliner hit.
Also, the most watched building on earth had 50 cameras pointed on it from the side the plane came, FBI confiscated all 50 videos within the hour, even those from the gas station and the hotel across the road, and in six years the only one video released never shows AA77.As to the hole in the Pentagon face:

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.As to the windows:

Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do — they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."As to whether it was Flight 77 that hit their or not:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6#bigplane

Flight UA93 hit a field because the passengers overrun the hijackers and they lost control of the plane. But its hole is almost empty, no rear tail, no wings, no luggage, no passengers, all pieces are small as confetti AND scattered over a 5 miles radius area.
That kind of plane didn’t have phones on board at the time, and it’s proved cellphone don’t work at that altitude – cell towers give cover in a horizontal circular area, not spheric.Here's an explanation as to the debris being spread around from the crash site in such small pieces.

Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. [B]"Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater — not 6 miles — easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest — toward Indian Lake.As to no passengers, here are confirmations of remains being identified:

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011010aircrash1010p3.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/26/national/main502203.shtml

Analysts from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington matched remains to seven crewmembers and all 33 passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville after passengers struggled with the hijackers.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-11-sept11-remains_x.htm

As to the cell phones:

But communications experts state that cell phone conversations at such altitudes are quite possible. Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at CTIA-The Wireless Association, said, “cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet [10,670 meters].” Paul Guckian, vice president of engineering for cell phone maker Qualcomm, stated, “at the altitude for commercial airliners, around 30,000 or 35,000 feet [9,145 to 10,670 meters], [some] phones would still get a signal.” (Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics, pp. 83-84.)

In fact, one cell phone conversation from Flight 93 was introduced into evidence at the trial of Zaccarias Moussaoui.http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2007&m=March&x=20070330134723abretnuh0.9919245

Sertes

10-06-2007, 07:00 PM

The NIST report clearly showed that the planes sliced through the utility shafts of the building allowing fires to become widespread throughout the building. The initial blast with the jet fuel involved was powerful enough to carry the force and flames all the way to the lobby of the building where it blew open elevator doors and broke windows in the lobby.

An old claim based on old info, that NIST cannot take back now. The Twin Towers were built essentially as three separate buildings one on top of the other. Every “block” had a skylobby, and there was no elevator going all the way to the floor except for the “express elevator” highlighted by the green arrow. But that was used by people to escape, so that rules out the possibility that fires went that way.
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/7-Misc/debunk/crono/xpress-o.jpg

The elevator doors blew open and the windows broken in the lobby were due to explosions in the basement.

Here's the NIST explaining the "molten steel":

I can make a whole post on the pools of molten metal found in the basement during the excavations, up to 40 days later, I reserve the right to do it afterward, if I don’t, you’ve won this point for sure.

Here's the NIST once again, explaining the collapse and path of resistance:
[…]
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

According to this explanation by NIST those two falling pieces would reach ground simultaneously:
http://simplyrandom.com/forum/march07/fallspeed.jpg
A nice bending of physics, isn’t it? And even then it doesn’t count for the energy required to pulverize all concrete!!
I will explain better:
All the energy a gravitational collapse can account to is potential energy, which is turned into kinetic energy. This energy in the right block has only to accelerate the falling block to free fall speed. In the left block the kinetic energy has to accelerate the falling block to free fall speed (NIST doesn’t dispute this, we have countless video and seismic records), AND win resistance of the underlying floors AND destroy all contents with a compression that pulverizes concrete!
That’s why 191 (yep, they got +2 today) real life architects and structural engineers are telling us that explosives and cutting charges must have been used.
http://ae911truth.org

While it may be true that a steel framed building has never collapsed due solely to fire before, how many in history have received the amount of structural damage that WTC7 did as a result of the collpases of WTC 1&2?
Please document this damage you speak of. You would be the first on earth to do that.

How many buildings in history have been left burning for so many hours with such severe structural damage from another building collapse?

In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. See
http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/interstate_bank.jpg

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.htm

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors.

Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html

Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_burning.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_skyscraper.jpg

Although you may not like Popular Mechanics, their story is supported by experts and cannot be disputed:
[…]
NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

Oh, I can and I do dispute. Please provide PHOTO EVIDENCE of the hole Sunder from NIST talks about. Take your time, it will be a long search.

Yes, the primary radar is still there, along with the radar of a few thousand other planes in the air at the time. Kinda hard to pick out a specific plane without a transponder amongst thousands of other "blips" on the screen.

Quite the opposite! The hijacked one is the only one on radar without its name tag attached to the dot!
It’s standard procedure in the FAA to call any plane on any day that fails in his trasponder signal. It happened 67 times in the nine months before 9/11 that a plane got lost and every one of the 67 times the plane was flanked by F16 within minutes. It’s standard procedure. It should have stopped even AA11 and UA175 from reaching the Twin Towers.

As to the amount of time it took the fighter jets to get involved in intercepting the planes:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

I see you’ve chosen popular mechanics as the source of many answers. But Popular Mechanics, as the 9/11 commission report just ignores Mineta deposition and makes up his own unproved timetable. And it tells us that “They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us”, omg, how much time do we lose in starting a phone call??

You’ve watched Mineta deposition: He is into Whiteouse PEOC, he’s already in phone contact FAA number two in command, which is following the unidentified target in its trajectory toward the capital.
A young man enters the bunker to inform Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out, it's 9:25
At Langley, 105 miles away, Brad Derrig and Dean Eckmann got the order to scramble and will effectively be airborne at 9:30.
We have a target followed on radar, vice president knows that, and military fighters are in flight.
F16 flies at 1500 mph, even at half speed they could have intercepted the plane.
All conditions to down the plane and defend Washington D.C. are effective, if indeed the order was a “shoot down order”
But the plane comes to 30 miles, and the young man reports it to Cheney. Then it comes to 10, and the young man asks Dick Cheney “do the order still stand?” He snaps back “Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything on the contrary?”
Then the plane hits the pentagon.

Mineta also cleared it up last year, in this interview:
edDExK8PpWs(3 minutes)

Btw, Dick Cheney never testimonied under oath, Mineta has. Dick Cheney affirms he entered the PEOC at 9:37. Coincidence: the access computer had a failure, and lost track of access of the day 9/11.

As to the hole in the Pentagon face:
[…]Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan?
Straw-man argument: they answer the wrong, easier question expecting people to think they answered it all.
The correct question, the one I made is: is the hole big enough FOR THE FUSELAGE, in the middle?
And where are the two holes of the two ENGINES, which are stronger than the fuselage??

As to the windows:

So PM (and you) doesn’t dispute the fact windows are still on where the rear tail wing would have hit if indeed AA77 was the plane that hit the pentagon. It tells us that’s normal that those windows would resist the impact of a 100-tons aircraft at 500mph.
I ask you a couple of questions: why they don’t build bunkers in glass?
would you stand behind this window? It’s reinforced!
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/3-Pent/penetraz/fxy.jpg

Also:

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage

The editor of PM when confronted by Loose Change creators during an interview he confirmed the claim, and also said he had the photo of the landing gear at the punch out location. He has yet to show it, and for sure it’s not documented in PM book. The video is 8:08 long, but you only need to review what’s said after 7:30.
1d0XEHahJ2Q

As to whether it was Flight 77 that hit their or not:
“As to whether it was Flight 77 that hit their or not” we cannot trust one single testimony that contradics all other photographic evidences. I can find someone that saw Elvis on 9/11, should we book tickets for his next big concert?

Here's an explanation as to the debris being spread around from the crash site in such small pieces.
Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater — not 6 miles — easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest — toward Indian Lake.

First, the extent of the debris field is more than 1,5 miles as the article would mislead us.
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/7-Misc/debunk/crono/debrisall-o.jpg

Did a couple of those 4 tons engines fly away, taken by the 9 to 12 mph wind?
http://luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/3-Pent/dovaereo/2eng.jpg

Alleged UA93 hole is empty:
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/7-Misc/debunk/crono/grass-o.jpg
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/7-Misc/debunk/crono/shahole3-o.jpg
Like I said, no tail, no wings, no luggage, no passengers. Want to compare this photo with other air crashes?

As to no passengers, here are confirmations of remains being identified:
[…]
Analysts from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington matched remains to seven crewmembers and all 33 passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville after passengers struggled with the hijackers.

Are those the same they recovered from Shanksville?
How they checked the remains identity? Did they check it at all, or only recomposed 40 bodies and never checked wheter or not these were the passengers and crewmembers of UA93?

As to the cell phones:

But communications experts state that cell phone conversations at such altitudes are quite possible. Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at CTIA-The Wireless Association, said, “cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet [10,670 meters].” Paul Guckian, vice president of engineering for cell phone maker Qualcomm, stated, “at the altitude for commercial airliners, around 30,000 or 35,000 feet [9,145 to 10,670 meters], [some] phones would still get a signal.”

…but the “covered” radius on top of cell towers rahter than on ground would be so narrow that even if the phone would get the signal, actual communication for more than 5-10 seconds would be impossible. (depending on the speed the plane is flying).

jimnyc

10-06-2007, 09:02 PM

An old claim based on old info, that NIST cannot take back now. The Twin Towers were built essentially as three separate buildings one on top of the other. Every “block” had a skylobby, and there was no elevator going all the way to the floor except for the “express elevator” highlighted by the green arrow. But that was used by people to escape, so that rules out the possibility that fires went that way.From the NIST report:

For an elevator’s cables to be cut and result in dropping the car to the bottom of the shaft, the cables would need to have been in the aircraft impact debris path, floors 93 through 98 in WTC 1 or floors 78 through 83 in WTC 2. Inspection of the elevator riser diagram and architectural floor plans for WTC 1 shows that the following elevators met these criteria: cars 81 through 86 (Bank B) and 87 through 92 (Bank C), local cars in Zone III; car 50, the freight elevator, and car 6, the Zone III shuttle. … Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so.http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf

An elevator engineer in the south tower reports:

As I turned around to go back toward the core of the building in the lobby, the second plane hit, and that shook the building.

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

I’m looking from the lobby up to a mezzanine area or the second floor where they lined up all the people to go up to the rooftop, and I’m looking up expecting something, building parts to be coming down, because I wasn’t quite sure what that noise was.

But I found out later, when the plane came through the building, it cut the hoist ropes, the governor ropes, of (the) 6 and 7 cars, which was the observation cars.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm

The elevator doors blew open and the windows broken in the lobby were due to explosions in the basement.Sure, there were eyewitness accounts of hearing loud thuds and explosions all over between the 2 buildings, not very surpising considering the destruction they both took from 2 500mph bombs hitting them. There were all kinds of transformers and other elctrical equipment that could have exploded as a result of fires and other related damage. But you're going to have to do better than a plain old "conspiracy theory" to prove there were any actual "bombs".

I can make a whole post on the pools of molten metal found in the basement during the excavations, up to 40 days later, I reserve the right to do it afterward, if I don’t, you’ve won this point for sure.Some claim it was the steel along with debris that caused the prolonged burning while others claim a lot of it was actually aluminum that was "molten". But again, I'll need more than a "conspiracy theory" to believe it had anything at all to do with planted explosives. For now I'll stick with reality and the testimony of experts who looked over the scene.

According to this explanation by NIST those two falling pieces would reach ground simultaneously:

A nice bending of physics, isn’t it? And even then it doesn’t count for the energy required to pulverize all concrete!!
I will explain better:
All the energy a gravitational collapse can account to is potential energy, which is turned into kinetic energy. This energy in the right block has only to accelerate the falling block to free fall speed. In the left block the kinetic energy has to accelerate the falling block to free fall speed (NIST doesn’t dispute this, we have countless video and seismic records), AND win resistance of the underlying floors AND destroy all contents with a compression that pulverizes concrete!
That’s why 191 (yep, they got +2 today) real life architects and structural engineers are telling us that explosives and cutting charges must have been used.
http://ae911truth.orgWords from them are meaningless as they were neither present that day nor did they officially inspect the rubble, steel or any other portions of the debris. Again, leading engineers have explained this countless times and it's part of the official report. Forgive me if I believe the word of those directly involved at ground zero and the ensuing investigation over your explanation.

Please document this damage you speak of. You would be the first on earth to do that.Again, popular mechanics explained this perfectly:

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse.

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse.

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors.

n February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing.

Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.You're leaving out one part, and one VERY important part. Unlike the buildings you mention, NO CONCRETE was used to reinforce the columns in WTC7. The concrete in the other buildings are likely what held the core of the buildings together and prevented collapse.

And buildings made of steel HAVE IN FACT fallen due to fire in the past: (these are snippets from the entire page, link included at the end)

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing...

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer.

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm - And much more about fire and steel building collapses on this page.

Another great article about "Fire and Steel" - http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

Oh, I can and I do dispute. Please provide PHOTO EVIDENCE of the hole Sunder from NIST talks about. Take your time, it will be a long search.Didn't take longer than 10 seconds as I had it bookmarked from a long time ago! NYPD police file photo:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/wtc7damage.jpg

Quite the opposite! The hijacked one is the only one on radar without its name tag attached to the dot!
It’s standard procedure in the FAA to call any plane on any day that fails in his trasponder signal. It happened 67 times in the nine months before 9/11 that a plane got lost and every one of the 67 times the plane was flanked by F16 within minutes. It’s standard procedure. It should have stopped even AA11 and UA175 from reaching the Twin Towers.Directly from the 9/11 Commission report:

Controllers track airliners such as the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 primarily by watching the data from a signal emitted by each aircraft's transponder equipment. Those four planes, like all aircraft traveling above 10,000 feet, were required to emit a unique transponder signal while in flight.93

On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.94

Before 9/11, it was not unheard of for a commercial aircraft to deviate slightly from its course, or for an FAA controller to lose radio contact with a pilot for a short period of time. A controller could also briefly lose a commercial aircraft's transponder signal, although this happened much less frequently. However, the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash. In all of these instances, the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft, the parent company of the aircraft, and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course. Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts-which could take five minutes or more-were tried and had failed.The rest of the explanation, minus the "conspiracy theory" portion, is extensively explained in the official report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Straw-man argument: they answer the wrong, easier question expecting people to think they answered it all.
The correct question, the one I made is: is the hole big enough FOR THE FUSELAGE, in the middle?
And where are the two holes of the two ENGINES, which are stronger than the fuselage??I'm not an engineer, I'll allow the official NIST report and a few other complimentary pages explain this one.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html

While I can't perfectly explain the engineering and damage that occured that day, to imply that IT DIDN'T happen by the force of the plane widely believed to have crashed there, is ludicrous and again nothing more than a "conspiracy theory"

So PM (and you) doesn’t dispute the fact windows are still on where the rear tail wing would have hit if indeed AA77 was the plane that hit the pentagon. It tells us that’s normal that those windows would resist the impact of a 100-tons aircraft at 500mph.
I ask you a couple of questions: why they don’t build bunkers in glass?
would you stand behind this window? It’s reinforced!I don't think the building is even left standing where the tail wing would have hit! But as you can see in this image, many windows were taken out, while many not in the direct path survived.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/pentagon1.jpg

The editor of PM when confronted by Loose Change creators during an interview he confirmed the claim, and also said he had the photo of the landing gear at the punch out location. He has yet to show it, and for sure it’s not documented in PM book. The video is 8:08 long, but you only need to review what’s said after 7:30.Here ya go:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html

“As to whether it was Flight 77 that hit their or not” we cannot trust one single testimony that contradics all other photographic evidences. I can find someone that saw Elvis on 9/11, should we book tickets for his next big concert?How do you explain the following then, which is far more than just "single testimony":

Many eyewitnesses saw the plane hit the pentagon.

The passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site.

Eyewitness reports and photographs show plane debris at the Pentagon crash site
.
Passengers on American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls, reporting their aircraft had been hijacked.

A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims.

People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory website that debunks the conspiracy theory claims. The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site. Moreover, the black boxes for American Airlines flight 77 -- the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder -- were found at the Pentagon crash site.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html

First, the extent of the debris field is more than 1,5 miles as the article would mislead us.Debris, yes - but not the larger portions.

Did a couple of those 4 tons engines fly away, taken by the 9 to 12 mph wind?Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

Alleged UA93 hole is empty

Like I said, no tail, no wings, no luggage, no passengers. Want to compare this photo with other air crashes?Sure, show me other crash scene photos where a plane traveled in excess of 500mph straight down into the ground! Mostly everything disintegrated upon impact, got buried, burned or was tossed as a result.

Are those the same they recovered from Shanksville?
How they checked the remains identity? Did they check it at all, or only recomposed 40 bodies and never checked wheter or not these were the passengers and crewmembers of UA93?As it clearly stated, they MATCHED the remains with those that were on flight 93, including all passengers and crew. Are you implying these people didn't really crash there? That they aren't dead, or were killed elsewhere? How did they cover up such a massive conspiracy if so? Where are these people today? Why did their families confirm their deaths? How were the cell calls made, and one recorded and played as evidence?

…but the “covered” radius on top of cell towers rahter than on ground would be so narrow that even if the phone would get the signal, actual communication for more than 5-10 seconds would be impossible. (depending on the speed the plane is flying).Then why do you presume the loved ones of these people claimed to have spoken to them? How did they do it? What about the call that was entered in evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui?

Sertes

10-07-2007, 05:23 AM

First, it’s my claim that the documents that constituites the “official version”, mainly the FEMA report, the 9/11 commission report, NIST NCSTAR1 are works of Propaganda.

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propaganda', literally "propagating"] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.

So if you read selected pieces, or if you read it from A to Z, works like NIST NCSTAR1 make some sense, and the gaps are left to the reader to fill.

But if you compare what is said at some point with what is said at some other point you may find the same study contradicts itself.

The official version doens't stand up to close scrutiny

Collapses

Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so
[…]
An elevator engineer in the south tower reports:
What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level.

Well, that makes reports of 1 car in WTC1 and 2 cars in WTC2. So the claim from NIST you published earlier was:

The NIST report clearly showed that the planes sliced through the utility shafts of the building allowing fires to become widespread throughout the building. The initial blast with the jet fuel involved was powerful enough to carry the force and flames all the way to the lobby of the building where it blew open elevator doors and broke windows in the lobby.

So are we to believe that fire become widespread throughout the building (80 floors) by 1 or 2 elevator shafts? No, that statement was made for someone that never had the time to see exactly how many elevators from the hit zones would reach basement. When you see the number, you start asking: “only 1 or 2 elevator shafts filled with… plasma maybe.. can ignite 80 floors?

And there is no report of fires in the lobby.

Sure, there were eyewitness accounts of hearing loud thuds and explosions all over between the 2 buildings, not very surpising considering the destruction they both took from 2 500mph bombs hitting them. There were all kinds of transformers and other elctrical equipment that could have exploded as a result of fires and other related damage. But you're going to have to do better than a plain old "conspiracy theory" to prove there were any actual "bombs".
http://www.buffalobeast.com/89/images/Rodriguez%20Bush.jpg
William Rodriguez is a 9/11 hero, a title appointed to him by GWB himself, because he saved many lives that day by coming back to the building, helping fireman and trapped people get directions and move.
He worked there for many years as an head janitor, and he was trusted with one of the master keys, so basically when lots of people was running outside he got back inside and helped trapped people, his full story is there (in a long video, which is not strictly needed in this discussion, but I feel the man deserves at least to be known for what he did) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4478065958041536275&hl=it

He reported hearing a big explosion in the basement 7 seconds before the first plane hit. People was injured, burned by this explosion. Then, a loud but distant up noise.
Like he said: “maybe it’s all those years in the towers that makes me know the difference between up and down” :)
Even if the president appointed him a medal, his testimony never reached any of the official papers.
Here’s his first-hand recollection of the events, this is important:
wIZtqKiidlo

Some claim it was the steel along with debris that caused the prolonged burning while others claim a lot of it was actually aluminum that was "molten". But again, I'll need more than a "conspiracy theory" to believe it had anything at all to do with planted explosives. For now I'll stick with reality and the testimony of experts who looked over the scene.
That of Rodriguez was the “testimony of experts”. He is expert of the buildings, he was there.
Maybe you wanted to say “For now I’ll stick with reality (wrong thing to say in a debate) and the word of governative experts”.

I’ll produce the full claims on the “collapses” from the list made by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth:

Why the “collapses” ot the three towers exhibit all the characteristics of destruction by explosions while showing none of the characteristics of gravitational collapses?

Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet (thanks Hyperion for clearing this one out)
12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

WTC Building #7 exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

And while previously debating point 8 of the Twin Tower list, I see my image didn’t get published, I’ll try again:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4955/untitled2at0.jpg
According to this explanation by NIST those two falling pieces would reach ground simultaneously.
All the energy a gravitational collapse can account to is potential energy, which is turned into kinetic energy. This energy in the right block has only to accelerate the falling block to free fall speed. In the left block the kinetic energy has to accelerate the falling block to free fall speed (NIST doesn’t dispute this, we have countless video and seismic records), AND win resistance of the underlying floors AND destroy all contents with a compression that pulverizes concrete!

Again, leading engineers have explained this countless times and it's part of the official report. Forgive me if I believe the word of those directly involved at ground zero and the ensuing investigation over your explanation.[/quote]
So you put your trust in the men from NIST before your actual reasoning? That’s faith.
I don’t know why people accept faith to run their life, but since you do, the top experts now tell us otherwise, like I said 191 are openly supporting thisclaim, and James Quintiere, former head of NIST fire department, asks for a peer review of NIST works on 9/11 and asks them to finally publish some real explanation of how and why WTC7 fell, something compatible with all the elements reported by testimonies, videos, seismic records, physical laws.

Please document this damage you speak of. You would be the first on earth to do that.

Again, popular mechanics explained this perfectly:
[...]

I asked for evidence, not an explanation. PM can make any claim, then it has to prove it.

When PM quotes NIST, it quotes what is their “current working hypothesis”, it’s written clearly in your article. Instead PM (as part of propaganda) takes that for granted, like it was part of a fully explained and fully documented paper by NIST.
NIST has yet to produce something OFFICIAL that explains WTC7 collapse.

You're leaving out one part, and one VERY important part. Unlike the buildings you mention, NO CONCRETE was used to reinforce the columns in WTC7. The concrete in the other buildings are likely what held the core of the buildings together and prevented collapse.

And buildings made of steel HAVE IN FACT fallen due to fire in the past: (these are snippets from the entire page, link included at the end)
The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing...

WHAT?
This is McCormic Place EXIBITION HALL
http://www.chipublib.org/images/disasters/mccormick_fire.jpg
Source: http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html
And this is Sight and Sound THEATER

The fire occurred in a modern legitimate theater complex built specifically for live
stage performances. This public assembly building had seating for 1,400 and was advertised
as the largest indoor Christian theater in the nation. The theater specialized in presenting
epic biblical dramas from a 100-foot main stage and two 75-foot side stages that formed a
U-shape front, right and left of the audience seating
Source: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

What has to do with the destruction of a 2 floor exibition hall and the destruction of a theater with the collapse of a 47 stories high rise building??? I showed high rise buildings, you showed an exibition hall and a theates.

This is your photo:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/wtc7damage.jpg
This is the claim:

NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

http://www.imagehostingsite.com/images/4ndmdmmlgm5zqi0dammj.jpg
This is my counting:
8 floors (it well stands in the “approximately 10 stories”). But’s only 2 window wide, let’s say 3 “normal windows wide” because window at the corner are bigger.
“About 25 percent of the depth.” We cannot see that. THAT IS UNDOCUMENTED.
What we can see is that the hole is 8x3 = 24 windows wide.
I see two big areas, green one 12x7 and blue one 15x14. Plus some 30 windows above the blue zone. So that’s 12x7 + 15x14 + 30 = 324.
The reported damaged area is 24 / 324 = 7,4 %
Against 25% from Sunder statement.
The damage is not as extensive as it’s reported, isn’t it?

Pentagon

Quite the opposite! The hijacked one is the only one on radar without its name tag attached to the dot!
It’s standard procedure in the FAA to call any plane on any day that fails in his trasponder signal. It happened 67 times in the nine months before 9/11 that a plane got lost and every one of the 67 times the plane was flanked by F16 within minutes. It’s standard procedure. It should have stopped even AA11 and UA175 from reaching the Twin Towers.

Directly from the 9/11 Commission report:
However, the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash. In all of these instances, the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft, the parent company of the aircraft, and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course. Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts-which could take five minutes or more-were tried and had failed.
That’s what I wrote, “it’s standard procedure in the FAA to call any plane on any day that fails in his transponder signal”. And those lost radio signal too, it’s reported.
So why did they intercept them?
And in the case of AA77, they got it on radar, they were ACTIVELY searching for other hijacked flights, since it was AFTER the second hit on the towers.
AA77 managed to fly 20 minutes toward the most heavily defended air space zone of the world, washington dc, and crash in it.
Facts no commission can change.
And Mineta deposition tells us that they were following it since when it was 50 miles out. Please address THOSE points.

I'm not an engineer, I'll allow the official NIST report and a few other complimentary pages explain this one.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...title=Pentagon
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...28-581634.html

While I can't perfectly explain the engineering and damage that occured that day, to imply that IT DIDN'T happen by the force of the plane widely believed to have crashed there, is ludicrous and again nothing more than a "conspiracy theory"
Again, blind faith in NIST before actual reasoning.

I don't think the building is even left standing where the tail wing would have hit! But as you can see in this image, many windows were taken out, while many not in the direct path survived.

I can broke it to two easy claims, for the sake of the discussion. I want to debate, not force you into engineering details that you cannot debate without just linking NIST.
1) The rear tail wing damage is missing in the pentagon face
2) The two engines are neither inside nor outside nor could they have burned out.
You published a photo of the pentagon face after the collapse
That’s before the collapse:
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/3-Pent/penetraz/Nowinr-o.jpg
Real size CGI plane added before the actual photo of the damage on the pentagon face
http://newguards.us/brent/jpg/Penta_Plane_3dsbd.jpg
Full, high resolution here: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg

The editor of PM when confronted by Loose Change creators during an interview he confirmed the claim, and also said he had the photo of the landing gear at the punch out location. He has yet to show it, and for sure it’s not documented in PM book. The video is 8:08 long, but you only need to review what’s said after 7:30.

Here ya go:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html
Is this “the photo of the landing gear AT THE PUNCH OUT LOCATION?”. If it’s so, it’s dark OUT THERE.

How do you explain the following then, which is far more than just "single testimony":

Many eyewitnesses saw the plane hit the pentagon.
Many eyewitnesses saw something flying toward the pentagon painted as an American Airline plane. Here’s some:

De Chiaro, Steve
<<Instead of following the streams of people away from the Pentagon, Steve DeChiaro ran toward the smoke. As he reached the west side of the building he saw a light post bent in half. "But when I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building," he said. "No tail. No wings. No nothing." He followed the emergency crews that had just arrived. He saw people hanging out of windows and others crawling from the demolished area. >>

Khavkin, D. S.
<<from an 8th floor high-rise: "At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft...">>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1540000/1540586.stm

Walter, Mike
<<Washington, Mike Walter, USA Today, on the road when a jet slammed into the Pentagon: "I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' "And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. >>
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.terrorism/
[/quote]

The passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site.
That is part of the false flag inside job conspiracy, coverup.

Eyewitness reports and photographs show plane debris at the Pentagon crash site
Sure, no engines, no rear tail damage.

Passengers on American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls, reporting their aircraft had been hijacked.
This one is debatable, like I said.

Moreover, the black boxes for American Airlines flight 77 -- the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder -- were found at the Pentagon crash site.
Found, or placed?

But answer me on this issue you skipped: Why the FBI didn’t release a single video from the 85 confiscated where AA77 can be clearly seen, closing the issue once for all?
They first said such videos might be used as proof on the Mousaui trial, but NOW? Now they simply deny FOIA requests.

UA93

"It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."
[…]
Sure, show me other crash scene photos where a plane traveled in excess of 500mph straight down into the ground! Mostly everything disintegrated upon impact, got buried, burned or was tossed as a result.

So, once the plane hits the ground with low angle, so the 4 tons engine bounces away, 300 yards.
Next the plane hits the ground with high angle, so the most is buried
Which one, mister?

As it clearly stated, they MATCHED the remains with those that were on flight 93, including all passengers and crew. Are you implying these people didn't really crash there? That they aren't dead, or were killed elsewhere? How did they cover up such a massive conspiracy if so? Where are these people today? Why did their families confirm their deaths? How were the cell calls made, and one recorded and played as evidence?
Yes. Killed elsewhere. Massive, killing 40 people? Dead. Because they’re dead. By computers, or recordered before the actual shooting of the poor passengers on ground.
IF the conspiracy is true, they planned to kill 3000 american civilian. What difference would it make to kill 40? In this –sad- discussion please leave emotion aside.
The claim is that AA77 and UA93 were landed somewere and substituted with smaller drone flights or cruise missiles (one loaded, the other not loaded), just as in Operation Northwoods:
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute to the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA propietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircfraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the western hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Change “Mig aircraft” with “arab hijackers” and “distress frequency may day message” with “cellphone calls from the passengers” and you got it.

jimnyc

10-07-2007, 08:06 AM

First, it’s my claim that the documents that constituites the “official version”, mainly the FEMA report, the 9/11 commission report, NIST NCSTAR1 are works of Propaganda.

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propaganda', literally "propagating"] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.

So if you read selected pieces, or if you read it from A to Z, works like NIST NCSTAR1 make some sense, and the gaps are left to the reader to fill.

But if you compare what is said at some point with what is said at some other point you may find the same study contradicts itself.

The official version doens't stand up to close scrutinySo not only is there a massive conspiracy that covered 4 jet airliners, inside bombing of 3 World Trade Center buildings, a supposed "missile" or the like at the pentagon and "non-existent" plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, we are to believe that FEMA, NIST & the entire 9/11 Commission were involved in this conspiracy as well? You're talking a conspiracy that would likely encompass thousands of people. Dead people, eyewitnesses, engineering experts, survivors, rescue personnel, government officials... And out of these thousands, not a single shred of proof to validate the conspiracy other than "thoughts of what might have really happened" and disagreement with the evidence provided.

Well, that makes reports of 1 car in WTC1 and 2 cars in WTC2. So the claim from NIST you published earlier was:

So are we to believe that fire become widespread throughout the building (80 floors) by 1 or 2 elevator shafts? No, that statement was made for someone that never had the time to see exactly how many elevators from the hit zones would reach basement. When you see the number, you start asking: “only 1 or 2 elevator shafts filled with… plasma maybe.. can ignite 80 floors?Not quite, there were far more that encompassed the length of the building.

Each tower had only two passenger elevators that went non-stop from bottom to top — to the Windows on the World restaurant in the north tower and the observation deck in the south tower.

Most deaths occurred in the express elevators in both towers that went from the lobbies to the 78th floors and in the elevators near the top floors of the buildings. Sixty-four of the twin towers' 198 elevators had cables that ran through the floors devastated by the hijacked hijacked planes, and the cables were likely destroyed.

The loss of life was almost complete inside the south tower's 10 giant express elevators, which were shuttling evacuees from the 78th floor to the ground floor after the north tower was hit. Only four people survived.http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

And there is no report of fires in the lobby.First off, I can't post it because it was a movie I rented. But there is a documentary movie made by 2 French brothers I believe that were documenting recruits at a local fire station that day. They went along with the fire personnel that day when the reports came in. I saw footage from this movie that showed the extensive damage in the lobby, including smoke and burn/explosion damage. I never stated there were burning fires, only that the blast powered it's way down the elevator shafts and blew open the doors in the lobby leaving extensive damage.

William Rodriguez is a 9/11 hero, a title appointed to him by GWB himself, because he saved many lives that day by coming back to the building, helping fireman and trapped people get directions and move.
He worked there for many years as an head janitor, and he was trusted with one of the master keys, so basically when lots of people was running outside he got back inside and helped trapped people, his full story is there (in a long video, which is not strictly needed in this discussion, but I feel the man deserves at least to be known for what he did)

He reported hearing a big explosion in the basement 7 seconds before the first plane hit. People was injured, burned by this explosion. Then, a loud but distant up noise.
Like he said: “maybe it’s all those years in the towers that makes me know the difference between up and down”
Even if the president appointed him a medal, his testimony never reached any of the official papers.
Here’s his first-hand recollection of the events, this is important:

That of Rodriguez was the “testimony of experts”. He is expert of the buildings, he was there.
Maybe you wanted to say “For now I’ll stick with reality (wrong thing to say in a debate) and the word of governative experts”.A janitor is your "expert testimony"?

There were many eyewitnesses in the building that never heard the initial crash of the planes hitting the building, so it's quite possible that Rodriguez never heard it either. But I'm confident being in the sub-basements he would have surely heard and felt the explosion of an elevator that crashed down from at least 78 floors above.

I’ll produce the full claims on the “collapses” from the list made by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth:You can post these from today until the end of time, but again, they were neither there that day or involved in the official aftermath investigation. They are simply giving their beliefs as to what they think may have transpired that day. The officials that actually were there and investigated came up with a more plausible explanation, which has already been posted.

According to this explanation by NIST those two falling pieces would reach ground simultaneously.
All the energy a gravitational collapse can account to is potential energy, which is turned into kinetic energy. This energy in the right block has only to accelerate the falling block to free fall speed. In the left block the kinetic energy has to accelerate the falling block to free fall speed (NIST doesn’t dispute this, we have countless video and seismic records), AND win resistance of the underlying floors AND destroy all contents with a compression that pulverizes concrete!While most of the structure fell at such a rate, the core of the building did not and this is widely mis-reported on the conspiracy sites. Actual footage of the buildings falling when scrutinized clearly shows the core remaining intact and taking much longer to come down than the parts of the building that weren't reinforced.

There was a movie I was referred to a while back called "9/11 Mysteries" which was put out by conspiracy theorists. I watched this 90 minute film. Then I watched a follow up of this very same film, but this time with corrections in place blowing their theories out of thew water, including footage of the core remaining intact. While not mandatory, anyone wanting to see great footage and a ton of theories exposed might want to see this.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/20/911-mysteries-debunked/

So you put your trust in the men from NIST before your actual reasoning? That’s faith.
I don’t know why people accept faith to run their life, but since you do, the top experts now tell us otherwise, like I said 191 are openly supporting thisclaim, and James Quintiere, former head of NIST fire department, asks for a peer review of NIST works on 9/11 and asks them to finally publish some real explanation of how and why WTC7 fell, something compatible with all the elements reported by testimonies, videos, seismic records, physical laws.A disaster hit the USA that we've never seen before. It's still almost unbelievable to those who witnessed what transpired that day that these planes were used as missiles, and buildings that were held in such high regard and considered a symbol of the USA were able to be destroyed. It only makes sense that many want to understand the events better. But none of this actually PROVES anything, it only proves that people don't understand or don't believe what they were told. And I'm sorry, but a conspiracy theory website showing engineers with credentials not believing what they heard, disputing it or giving alternate explanations just does not impress me. Call me crazy, but I tend to deal with cold hard facts and not theories. I've read pages upon pages upon pages of documents and testimony from officials and engineers ACTUALLY INVOLVED in the investigation and they all agree on what transpired that day.

I asked for evidence, not an explanation. PM can make any claim, then it has to prove it.

When PM quotes NIST, it quotes what is their “current working hypothesis”, it’s written clearly in your article. Instead PM (as part of propaganda) takes that for granted, like it was part of a fully explained and fully documented paper by NIST.
NIST has yet to produce something OFFICIAL that explains WTC7 collapse.How interesting, claims can be made but proof is needed? I can easily say the same about almost everything you provided thus far, including your "expert engineers" that make claims.

I'm sorry that photographers weren't able to get beyond the intense flames and smoke to get you the pictures and/or video footage you desire. But just as there is no footage sharing what you like "proving" the damage, I see no proof of footage disputing the damage. This leads me to believe that there were too many things going on in the rescue/recovery operation, and fighting the fire and dangers that existed to be bothered worrying about photographic evidence for conspiracy theorists down the road.

WHAT?
This is McCormic Place EXIBITION HALL

And this is Sight and Sound THEATER

What has to do with the destruction of a 2 floor exibition hall and the destruction of a theater with the collapse of a 47 stories high rise building??? I showed high rise buildings, you showed an exibition hall and a theates.It goes to show what damage fire alone can do to steel built structures. I also not that you didn't address the other proof of collapses of steel buildings on the link I provided, which went into detail about the effects of steel structures when exposed to a lengthy fire.

This is my counting:
8 floors (it well stands in the “approximately 10 stories”). But’s only 2 window wide, let’s say 3 “normal windows wide” because window at the corner are bigger.
“About 25 percent of the depth.” We cannot see that. THAT IS UNDOCUMENTED.
What we can see is that the hole is 8x3 = 24 windows wide.
I see two big areas, green one 12x7 and blue one 15x14. Plus some 30 windows above the blue zone. So that’s 12x7 + 15x14 + 30 = 324.
The reported damaged area is 24 / 324 = 7,4 %
Against 25% from Sunder statement.
The damage is not as extensive as it’s reported, isn’t it?I'll stick with the photograph I saw coupled with the dozens of witnesses that saw the damage, mostly fire personnel.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out.

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."

I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving.http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

That’s what I wrote, “it’s standard procedure in the FAA to call any plane on any day that fails in his transponder signal”. And those lost radio signal too, it’s reported.
So why did they intercept them?
And in the case of AA77, they got it on radar, they were ACTIVELY searching for other hijacked flights, since it was AFTER the second hit on the towers.
AA77 managed to fly 20 minutes toward the most heavily defended air space zone of the world, washington dc, and crash in it.
Facts no commission can change.
And Mineta deposition tells us that they were following it since when it was 50 miles out. Please address THOSE points.I can only say that it's obvious mistakes were made in communications. Why those involved in tracking these planes and seeing the issues on radar and with the transponders didn't act sooner is sad. Why there were no direct communications setup ahead of time between the air towers and our defense system is beyond me, but hopefully these events will make them rethink the setup. But with questions unanswered as to why it took so long for the airlines to report their findings, or the subsequent delay in getting defense jets in the air, DOES NOT prove anything other than mistakes were made. I see no evidence whatsoever and nothing more than another conspiracy theory.

I can broke it to two easy claims, for the sake of the discussion. I want to debate, not force you into engineering details that you cannot debate without just linking NIST.
1) The rear tail wing damage is missing in the pentagon face
2) The two engines are neither inside nor outside nor could they have burned out.
You published a photo of the pentagon face after the collapse
That’s before the collapse:

Real size CGI plane added before the actual photo of the damage on the pentagon faceI can only assume that the tail wing was destroyed on impact with the building but wasn't strong enough to initially "destroy" what it hit, but it's obvious damage was done as a result as the point of entry eventually collapsed as a result.

And here is a page explaining the engines from the plane that day, and it has a few photos for you:

http://aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Is this “the photo of the landing gear AT THE PUNCH OUT LOCATION?”. If it’s so, it’s dark OUT THERE.That's it, "it's dark out there"? But since that isn't acceptable for you, here's another page that perfectly describes things for you, AND includes an outdoor picture of a portion of the landing gear:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

Many eyewitnesses saw something flying toward the pentagon painted as an American Airline plane. Here’s some:

De Chiaro, Steve
my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building," he said. "No tail. No wings. No nothing." He followed the emergency crews that had just arrived. He saw people hanging out of windows and others crawling from the demolished area.

Khavkin, D. S.
a small commercial aircraft..

Walter, Mike
I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' "And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.Here's Mike Walter disputing the conspiracy theorists distorting his words (and further explaining how the wings couldn't withstand the impact as I stated earlier):

<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ycPUDktZpCU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

And testimony from a former USMC working as a contractor at the Pentagon:

I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

That is part of the false flag inside job conspiracy, coverup.So the medical pathology experts that identified all the remains of flight 77 were a part of this massive conspiracy too?

Sure, no engines, no rear tail damage.Pieces of the engine provided in my earlier rebuttal, and the official reports clearly explain why the wings did not withstand the force of the impact into the Pentagon.

This one is debatable, like I said.How do you debate the actual recording of a cell phone conversation that was direct evidence at trial? Are you stating for the record that this phone call was part of a conspiracy as well, and made up?

Found, or placed?

But answer me on this issue you skipped: Why the FBI didn’t release a single video from the 85 confiscated where AA77 can be clearly seen, closing the issue once for all?
They first said such videos might be used as proof on the Mousaui trial, but NOW? Now they simply deny FOIA requests.So now the black boxes and subsequent data retrieved from them were placed at the scene, and the data was doctored to make it appear as if a plane hit the Pentagon?

I guess none of the videos clearly showed a plane on them. And you say they deny the FOIA requests? Then why was the pentagon video released as a result of the request? And the Citgo gas station request? And the Doubletree hotel video released?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon_security_video

So, once the plane hits the ground with low angle, so the 4 tons engine bounces away, 300 yards.
Next the plane hits the ground with high angle, so the most is buried
Which one, mister?I don't believe I stated it was any other angle then the plane being steered directly downward into the ground. And it makes complete sense that smaller objects disintegrated or were strewn about the crash scene while a huge steel object such as an engine would be heavily damaged but tossed away from the impact.

And what's with the "which one, mister" comment? I sense a touch of sarcasm. I thought these debates would remain completely civil and within the facts. But if you choose to inject sarcasm in here I can do that too. Your conspiracy theories ar ebeing blown out of the water, and I'll do even a better job of besting your sarcasm if you test me. Let's just stick to the facts and leave out the sarcastic comments, ok?

Yes. Killed elsewhere. Massive, killing 40 people? Dead. Because they’re dead. By computers, or recordered before the actual shooting of the poor passengers on ground.
IF the conspiracy is true, they planned to kill 3000 american civilian. What difference would it make to kill 40? In this –sad- discussion please leave emotion aside.
The claim is that AA77 and UA93 were landed somewere and substituted with smaller drone flights or cruise missiles (one loaded, the other not loaded), just as in Operation Northwoods:
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute to the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA propietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircfraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the western hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf)
Change “Mig aircraft” with “arab hijackers” and “distress frequency may day message” with “cellphone calls from the passengers” and you got it.That's quite a theory I must admit, but is there a shred of proof anywhere to PROVE any of this took place on 9/11? Again, we're talking thousands upon thousands of people involved at all 4 locations with so many variables involved. Surely there would be some sort of conclusive proof or witnesses with a theory of this magnitude.

Sertes

10-07-2007, 03:25 PM

So not only is there a massive conspiracy that covered 4 jet airliners, inside bombing of 3 World Trade Center buildings, a supposed "missile" or the like at the pentagon and "non-existent" plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, we are to believe that FEMA, NIST & the entire 9/11 Commission were involved in this conspiracy as well? You're talking a conspiracy that would likely encompass thousands of people. Dead people, eyewitnesses, engineering experts, survivors, rescue personnel, government officials...

We can look to who really wrote the three reports, as people who worked under the head of FEMA, NIST and 9/11 commission tell us their conclusions are faulted.
FEMA report was pushing the claim for “the pancake effect” in the collapses of the Twin Towers, but NIST NCSTAR1 changed that accounting to “the tremendous energy of the upper block”, and the former head of NIST fire department, James Quintiere looked at it and joined the two hundred architects and engineers in asking a new study, because that was flawed.
What about the 9/11 commission report? In their book "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" on their experience serving as co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton devoted the first chapter on how they believed the Commission was set up for failure. Hamilton listed a number of reasons why they thought this, including the late start of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed; the insufficient funds, 3 million dollars, initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested and received additional funds, but the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who did not want the Commission formed; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; and the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."
Philip Zelikow was the head of 9/11 commission, personal friend of Condoleeza Rice, hardly the man to study wheter or not there were inside jobs.

So you see, you don’t need to control every worker in FEMA, NIST, 9/11 commission, only control the head that signed the studies, to make look as those 3 groups supports the official version.

And who can make a stand down order of the entire US air force we witnessed? Only a couple of people in the world. One by not answering phone, the other by telling “of course the order still stand, have you heard anything on the contrary”

See, the emergency procedures of hijacking response were changed three months before the attacks, after being set in 1997.
http://luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/2-Aerei/cambproc/hijack2o.gif
That would be Donald Rumsfeld (aka the torturer, if I may)

See what Robert Hordon, a professional flight controller and member of Pilots for 9/11 truth, has to say about the call he made for American 11 and United 175
o9XRAtp-bVM

Where was Rumsfeld on 9/11? He was on the pentagon lawn just after alleged hit by AA77, directing the removal of the pieces of evidence. A PBS video got him taped there when he should have been in his office, answering the phone, being in command of the hijacking management (as the order shows).
And also, how did he knew that the pentagon plane was the last one to strike, and that it was safe to be outside?

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/2-Aerei/cambproc/rumhelpo.jpg

What about Dick Cheney? You continue to dodge the issue, he knew about the incoming plane at the pentagon, there was the possibility for a shot-down, that was after the second hit on the towers when it was clear to all that people in hijacked planes that day were doomed anyway… but the plane was ALLOWED to complete its course, all the way to the most heavily defended air space in the world.

So, how many?
Some head of departments, the group of those in charge, 50-100 trained military to put the bombs in the WTC, the same number for the planes… that makes the number in the hundred, not in the thousands.
And those military who later found themselves in the middle of the conspiracy that killed 3000 civilias, would they speak out their little bit of insigificant experience?
They would be hanged for high treason at best, and at worst the conspirators would get him first.

And there is no report of fires in the lobby.
I never stated there were burning fires, only that the blast powered it's way down the elevator shafts and blew open the doors in the lobby leaving extensive damage.
No, YOU wrote it in your first intervent:

The NIST report clearly showed that the planes sliced through the utility shafts of the building allowing fires to become widespread throughout the building. The initial blast with the jet fuel involved was powerful enough to carry the force and flames all the way to the lobby of the building where it blew open elevator doors and broke windows in the lobby.
Carry the flame all the way to the lobby. There’s no fire in the lobby.

A janitor is your "expert testimony"?
Yes, an head janitor, appointed 9/11 hero. He is an expert of the building, he worked there and knew all corners of the buildings.

There were many eyewitnesses in the building that never heard the initial crash of the planes hitting the building, so it's quite possible that Rodriguez never heard it either. But I'm confident being in the sub-basements he would have surely heard and felt the explosion of an elevator that crashed down from at least 78 floors above.
What about the explosion that pushed him UPWARD and then 7 seconds later he heard the hit up above, from the video I posted?

NIST has yet to produce something OFFICIAL that explains WTC7 collapse.
How interesting, claims can be made but proof is needed? I can easily say the same about almost everything you provided thus far, including your "expert engineers" that make claims.
Well, those 191 arhcitects and engineers for 9/11 truth are asking for a new impartial inquiry because the official papers did not account for all the witnessed evidence.
They’re asking why the “collapses” of the 3 high-rise buildings exhibit more than ten elements in common with a controlled demolition while showing none of the elements of a gravitational collapse.
It’s up to the official institutions to answer that. But they cannot change the facts, all elements were reported by countless witnessess in manhattan, conutless independent videos, seismic records, recorded NYPD an NYFD radio transmission. That is not the pentagon and its 40 witness, and its 85 missing camera tapes, that is NEW YORK.

I'm sorry that photographers weren't able to get beyond the intense flames and smoke to get you the pictures and/or video footage you desire. But just as there is no footage sharing what you like "proving" the damage, I see no proof of footage disputing the damage. This leads me to believe that there were too many things going on in the rescue/recovery operation, and fighting the fire and dangers that existed to be bothered worrying about photographic evidence for conspiracy theorists down the road.

That was my point, thank you, that no photo evidence exists of that massive damage Sunder talks about.

It goes to show what damage fire alone can do to steel built structures. I also not that you didn't address the other proof of collapses of steel buildings on the link I provided, which went into detail about the effects of steel structures when exposed to a lengthy fire.
Because all I have to prove at this point, something we can agree on, that:
“No steel framed high-rise building ever collapsed due to fires before nor after 9/11”.

I'll stick with the photograph I saw coupled with the dozens of witnesses that saw the damage, mostly fire personnel.
Ok, we have evidence for 7.4% damage on a side of WTC7. First we cover Sunder fake claim (that he had evidence for a massive hole) then we proceed to testimonies.

Pentagon plane

And here is a page explaining the engines from the plane that day, and it has a few photos for you:

http://aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Read it before. Sizes are not even comparable:
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/3-Pent/disintegr/2eng-o.jpg
That could be an engine part of something smaller, like a Global Hawk or a Tomahawk Cruise Missile. They have a single engine, for instance, just as we have 1 of those rotors.

That's it, "it's dark out there"? But since that isn't acceptable for you, here's another page that perfectly describes things for you, AND includes an outdoor picture of a portion of the landing gear:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml
That is not the same piece. First you produced a photo of a landing gear staff inside. This other is a landing gear wheel, outside.
So what caused the 12 foot diameter punch out hole in the pentagon third ring, the landing gear or the landing gear wheel?

Here's Mike Walter disputing the conspiracy theorists distorting his words (and further explaining how the wings couldn't withstand the impact as I stated earlier)
Nice find, never heard of it before, no one would like it more than me to find out that I was mistaken on EVERYTHING and the world is a safer place than the one the evidence I have points me to.
So this point is yours, you have more testimony for a 757 than me for it being a smaller plane. But keep in mind I have some. Lunatics maybe, but I have some.

So the medical pathology experts that identified all the remains of flight 77 were a part of this massive conspiracy too?

No, why? They received the bodies part and proceeded to the identification. But WHERE THEY CAME FROM?

Pieces of the engine provided in my earlier rebuttal, and the official reports clearly explain why the wings did not withstand the force of the impact into the Pentagon.

I only asked where are the engines and why the damage from the rear tail wing is missing.
Let’s break it up:

Rear tail wing
If the rear tail wing is detached from the body of the plane on impact, like it happens many times in air disasters, then why is not visible in first responders photos? The lawn is perfectly intact.
If instead the rear tail wing entered with the plane, where is the damage of it in the pentagon face?

Engines
AA77 was a 757-223, mounted two PW2000 rolls royce engines of steel and titanium alloys.
We have only one 16 foot hole in the pentagon (and it’s in the middle of the damaged area, too)

So, if the engines bounced outside, same argument as before, why they are not visible in first responders photos?
If they entered the pentagon, where are the holes?

The pentagon lawn, first responder photo.
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/3-Pent/penetraz/gm5o.jpg

How do you debate the actual recording of a cell phone conversation that was direct evidence at trial? Are you stating for the record that this phone call was part of a conspiracy as well, and made up?

Like I debated the calls from UA93, they routed the call from the area where the passengers were held to the area the AA77 drone was flying. Difficult to prove unless someone comes out, but not difficult to make.
The bodies of AA77 and those of UA93 were sent to the same military medical facility.

So now the black boxes and subsequent data retrieved from them were placed at the scene, and the data was doctored to make it appear as if a plane hit the Pentagon?

Yes. But it’s not “now”, that was the claim all the time.

I guess none of the videos clearly showed a plane on them. And you say they deny the FOIA requests? Then why was the pentagon video released as a result of the request? And the Citgo gas station request? And the Doubletree hotel video released?
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...security_video

Exactly, none of the videos showed a plane, clearly or otherwise, much less AA77.
And… you linked a conspiracy theorist site, maybe?
It clearly shows what the camera recorded:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/4/40/Pentagon_video_security1_annotation.jpg

And what we should have seen instead:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/e/e9/Pentagon_video_security1b.jpg

There's no plane of the size of AA77 there.

Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom Of Information Act request on December 15, 2004 seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security camera's and the Virginia Department Of Transportation. The FBI admitted in a May 22, 2005 letter that is possessed video tapes responsive to Judicial Watch's request. However, the FBI refused to release the video tapes.

"Why does the FBI continue to play games with the open records process? There is no valid legal reason to withhold these videos from the American people."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/fbi-911vids.shtml

UA93

I don't believe I stated it was any other angle then the plane being steered directly downward into the ground. And it makes complete sense that smaller objects disintegrated or were strewn about the crash scene while a huge steel object such as an engine would be heavily damaged but tossed away from the impact.

That does not make sense to me, expecially because it hit a rural field, not a mountain or a concrete wall.

And what's with the "which one, mister" comment? I sense a touch of sarcasm. I thought these debates would remain completely civil and within the facts. But if you choose to inject sarcasm in here I can do that too. Your conspiracy theories ar ebeing blown out of the water, and I'll do even a better job of besting your sarcasm if you test me. Let's just stick to the facts and leave out the sarcastic comments, ok?

Ok, in fact you’re right, that was sarcastic, and I won’t happen again.
But it makes the par with <<But again, I'll need more than a "conspiracy theory" to believe it had anything at all to do with planted explosives. For now I'll stick with reality and the testimony of experts who looked over the scene.>>
It’s sarcasm even if it’s not short.
And also “conspiracy theory” is not to be used as a denigratory term. It’s still a conspiracy theory that 19 arabs led by OBL did it, it’s just the one the US gov is supporting.

So: apologies, again.
I’m so used to debate this issues with caveman that an unfair comment slipped in with the only civil debater since a long time.

Conspiracy, cont’d

That's quite a theory I must admit, but is there a shred of proof anywhere to PROVE any of this took place on 9/11? Again, we're talking thousands upon thousands of people involved at all 4 locations with so many variables involved. Surely there would be some sort of conclusive proof or witnesses with a theory of this magnitude.

Hundreds upon hundreds and it stops there, like I covered it at the beginning.
And the prove it the sum of all evidence we’re discussin here. The missed intervention, those in charge not responding to their duties, the collapses that deny the laws of physics, the missing engines and the missing rear tail damage at the pentagon, the empty hole at shanksville.

But you seem focused on the sheer number of people required. Can you answer me on this:

How many people would be needed for Operation Northwoods? (fake terrorism act in american cities, fake airliner drone, military pilots that would attack the drone airliner and real barges with cuban exules, planning, communications, coverup…)

How many people knew or took part in the Manhattan Project? (but don’t tell me we’re not at war since 9/11/2001, please – the war on terrorism outlasted WW2)

Note: going back to work, I hope I can keep up with the posting (this one took 3 hours). I think you might be are having the same problem as me, during workdays.

jimnyc

10-07-2007, 03:53 PM

Sertes

10-08-2007, 07:41 AM

I have to be honest with you, Sertes. I too have spent much time in all of my replies thus far, at least an hour or so minimum on each post. I'm not going to do so again this time around as it seems we'll just be rehashing the same stuff over and over. My opinion thus far is that you have posted very little proof and a whole lot of conspiracies. I've posted endless amounts of proof and testimony and right or wrong it's mostly been dismissed. Thus far in the debate, I'll let my proof provided stand against your arguments and let the readers decide which seems most credible.

From this point, this is what I would like to concentrate on and see if I can get some answers to. Hopefully I won't be met with ideas, conspiracies & innuendo - hopefully we'll get some cold hard facts and data from you in response to a few of these questions.

No problem from me as long as I get some answer from you too. Answers, maybe with an attached link, but it should contain either your opinion or the official version point of view.

World Trade Centers

Were there ANY bombs found?

No.

Was there ANY evidence of bomb making material recovered at the scene?

No. But the crime scene was cleared before any forensic analysis could be mounted. Even NIST had steel samples shipped to them. Only FEMA was able to make a test, see below

Any remnants of explosives, residue, powders, wiring or anything of the sort recovered to backup the assertions that bombs took down the buildings?

Yes, FEMA found found rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples, that would be compatible with high tech cutting charges known as thermite.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

And hysics professor Steven Jones, PhD. found chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf (full article, very long, very techincal read, but supported by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, 192 real world specialists of this field.)

How and when were these bombs placed in the WTC buildings?

I’ll answer “when” here and “how” below. In the years and months before the actual strike explosives and cutting charges were placed in WTC7, WTC1 and the lower half of WTC2.
The last, upper half of WTC2 was finished in a hurry in the weekend before 9/11, that is 9/8 and 9/9.
Scott Forbes, an IT engineer, tells about something that never happened before since he worked in the Twin Towers: he had to turn down all servers of his company that weekend because there were important engineering works to be done in the tower. So as the power was cut down all security cameras were turned down and all doors were open.
zhauHfDJ4b4
There is corroboration for this, of course. But I think these facts never made it to the 9/11 Commission Report, among others.

Also, in the movie 9/11 mysteries part 1: demolitions (which you saw) testimonies tell us that on 9/10 there was so much powder around, a complete mess, that they considered to call for a reprimend on the cleaners, that obviously didn’t make a good work that time. They got bigger problems in 2 days.
I can cut the section out of the movie and post it as a youtube movie if you want.

How were they placed in the buildings without a single witness? There would likely have been at least a miles worth of wiring if not more.

The core of the Twin Towers is shielded from view, demolition experts worked carefully and without anyone noticing by working inside the elevator shafts.
And miles of wiring was a common view in the Twin Towers: it’s the World Trade Center, among the most computerized civil building in the world, miles and miles of telephone cables, computer cables, optic cables. One more, one less, no one would notice from outside. Neither they would a dozen or an hundred.
Of course no one would stop or question any group of engineers or workers escorted by WTC complex security. Would you? Of course not.

Pentagon

How do you explain the many airplane parts found upon the scene immediately after the crash?

A small plane or a cruise missile hit it.

How do you explain the bodies of crew and passengers all being identified?

Because the real remains of the crew and passengers were shipped to the medical facility that made the identification of both AA77 and UA93 crew and passengers

If it wasn't flight 77, what exactly was it?

A drone of some sort, a flying machine such as a Global Hawk or a Cruise Missile, all we know for sure it that it was painted as an american airlines flight, it had only one small rotor, could fit in a 12 foot hole, it could produce an explosive shockwave capable of making a 12 foot hole straight ahead.

What happened to all the people that were on flight 77 and where are they now?

The plane has been substituted with the drone flying near it (as in Operation Northwoods), and the people on board were killed and shipped to the medical facility.
A computer controlled drone was needed because they couldn’t leave that part to a suicide pilot to miss the pentagon and ruin everything at the last second, inserting a decisive human factor in a so big conspiracy was a danger so big and it could easily avoided.
But real people was needed to make the fake calls and provide false, (otherwise unprovable) corroboration that the hijacking really took place, that there were “arabs on board”

What about eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the building, and even a few who saw the AA logo on the plane?

You have many witnesses that talk about a 757, some about a 737, I have some that talk about a small commuter plane, a 12seater.
For sure the paint was the cheapest part of the conspiracy. Again, even Operation Northwoods called for an unmanned flight painted as a commercial airliner. That was 1962.

Pennsylvania

If you don't believe the plane nosedived into that location, what do you think crashed there?

A drone of some sort, a flying machine such as a Global Hawk or a Cruise Missile, all we know for sure it that it had only one engine and was filled with explosives and small, random pieces of metal.

How were they able to positively identify the passengers and crew of flight 93?

Because the real remains of the crew and passengers were shipped to the medical facility that made the identification of both AA77 and UA93 crew and passengers

How do you explain the eyewitness accounts of the crash of flight 93?

There’s no one I’m aware of that has seen UA93 crash. The first to come from nearby found the area already blocked by FBI. Whithin minutes.

How do you dispute the phone calls? One entered as evidence at trial, and many loved ones speaking out about the calls?

The calls are true, the source was not the plane that hit the field in shanksville because cellphone calls were effectively impossible to make in 2001 with that kind of altitude and speed, as the plane passing over cell towers would countinously switch to a celltower after the other, every 30 seconds or so. Making 13 phone calls from the tail of the airplane at over 10000 feet at that speed is simply unbelivable

Again, it would be nice if some solid proof was offered as opposed to theories or possibilities. I normally ignore conspiracy theories and tend to only want to deal in facts.

Since you made the questions you have to accept my answers, we went from debating 9/11 to me explaining my theories. Some well adapt to the evidence, some are unprovable at this stage.

Let's start with these questions and work our way from there.

Now that I answered your 15 questions, some of which point to straw-man arguments and not to the real issues on 9/11, would you answer mine?
I’ll try to keep it political rather than technical whenever possible

Historical precedents

1) How many people would be needed for Operation Northwoods? (all the fake terrorism acts in american cities, the fake airliner drone, the military pilots that would attack the drone airliner and real barges with cuban exules, planning, communications, coverup…)

2) How many people knew or took part in the Manhattan Project?

Collapses

3) Why 192 real world architects and engineers tells us that the three collapses have more than ten points in common with controlled demolitions and show none of the elements of gravitational collapses?

4) Why former head of NIST fire department asked for a peer review of NIST work on 9/11 ?

Pentagon

5) Which one of the 5 sides of the pentagon was reinforced against explosions just before the strike, and was so mostly empty?

6) Where is the second engine of AA77 ?

7) Why the damage of the rear tail wing of AA77 is missing from the pentagon face?

Missed Intervention

8) Where was Dick Cheney at 9:30, when AA77 was 50 miles out? In command in the PEOC as Mineta testified under oath, or outside it as Dick told us?

9) Why Donald Rumsfeld was in the pentagon lawn just after the hit while his responsabilities called him elsewere to be in command of the hijacking management, and when no one outside the conspiracy would know that AA77 was the last plane to strike that day?

10) Why no one in the military was demoted nor even got a reprisal for not acting properly on 9/11?

Motives

11) What is the impressive speech Donal Rumsfeld had about missing funds at the pentagon that was later fogot by all media in the wake of 9/11 ?

12) Where were stored the majority of the papers of the Enron trial?

13) How much gold there was stored under the Twin Towers and how much gold was recovered from the rubble?

Debate

14) Which one of the things I’ve written so far is the most wrong one, the one that you have strong evidence to the contrary?

15) Which one of the things I’ve written so far is the second most wrong, another one that you have strong evidence to the contrary?

(Hope you’ll include the last two questions in your next post, too)

jimnyc

10-08-2007, 09:57 AM

No.No bombs found - entered as fact.

No. But the crime scene was cleared before any forensic analysis could be mounted. Even NIST had steel samples shipped to them. Only FEMA was able to make a test, see belowOut of the thousands of people involved in the recovery effort, not a single piece of evidence of bomb making material was recovered.

Yes, FEMA found found rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples, that would be compatible with high tech cutting charges known as thermite.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

And hysics professor Steven Jones, PhD. found chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf (full article, very long, very techincal read, but supported by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, 192 real world specialists of this field.)For an even more believable explanation:

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

I’ll answer “when” here and “how” below. In the years and months before the actual strike explosives and cutting charges were placed in WTC7, WTC1 and the lower half of WTC2.
The last, upper half of WTC2 was finished in a hurry in the weekend before 9/11, that is 9/8 and 9/9.
Scott Forbes, an IT engineer, tells about something that never happened before since he worked in the Twin Towers: he had to turn down all servers of his company that weekend because there were important engineering works to be done in the tower. So as the power was cut down all security cameras were turned down and all doors were open.No proof at all here other than the power down. Here is a response about Scott Forbes:

Conspiracy theorists often cite Scott Forbes, however he is not mentioned or quoted by any mainstream, reliable source on this "power down". His story is not corroborated by anyone else. Forbes was interviewed by Killtown, via e-mail and instant message.

KT: Besides the "power down" the weekend before 9/11, was there any other unusual activity going on related to the WTC? There was one guy, Ben Fountain, who worked on the 47 floor of the WTC 2 who said there was an unusual amount of evacuation drills. Did you experience any of those?

SF: We had regular fire/evacuation drills, but not an unusual number.

KT: Back to the weekend of the "power down," when did they turn the power off and when did they turn it back on?

SF: Off on Saturday afternoon - around 12 noon I think - and back on at about 2 pm on the Sunday (my timings on this are hazy).

About the power down:

KT: Was there a power down in the WTC 1 also?

SF: Not to my knowledge.

SF: I remember that we were notified some 3 or 4 weeks in advance by the Port Authority-NY/NJ that there would be a power outage - so we had to co-ordinate and plan efforts in the IT departments to ensure we had everything shut down in time and ready to restart. Frankly at the time I didn't think about WTC 1.

KT: What did the Port Authority say the power down was for?

SF: As far as I recall it was for re-cabling, though I don't remember the wording on official documents or the detail, as I wasn't in the Management Loop.

The power down occurred above the 48th floor, in order to install new cables to upgrade the computer bandwidth in the building. For security reasons, companies will definitely have staff there during a power down to monitor their servers and equipment.

So, the task of placing explosive, which normally takes much longer, was somehow done during a 26 hour power down on the upper floors of one of the building? What about the other two buildings? There are no reports of a power down in 7 World Trade Center, the other tower, or the bottom 48 floors of the south tower. This scenario is highly unlikely or impossible.http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Controlled_demolition

More interesting tidbits about Scott Forbes story:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

So he really doesn't offer much "proof" at all in fact. And I highly doubt there weren't provisions in place to keep the security systems running, unless of course you have credible evidence to show it was.

Also, in the movie 9/11 mysteries part 1: demolitions (which you saw) testimonies tell us that on 9/10 there was so much powder around, a complete mess, that they considered to call for a reprimend on the cleaners, that obviously didn’t make a good work that time. They got bigger problems in 2 days.
I can cut the section out of the movie and post it as a youtube movie if you want.I watched the movie. All this might prove is that work was being done inside the building and cement dust was tossed around and made a mess as a result. It doesn't provide a shred of evidence towards bombs or wiring of any kind being implemented.

The core of the Twin Towers is shielded from view, demolition experts worked carefully and without anyone noticing by working inside the elevator shafts.
And miles of wiring was a common view in the Twin Towers: it’s the World Trade Center, among the most computerized civil building in the world, miles and miles of telephone cables, computer cables, optic cables. One more, one less, no one would notice from outside. Neither they would a dozen or an hundred.
Of course no one would stop or question any group of engineers or workers escorted by WTC complex security. Would you? Of course not.So again, a theory, but no proof at all.

A small plane or a cruise missile hit it.And no proof of either.

Because the real remains of the crew and passengers were shipped to the medical facility that made the identification of both AA77 and UA93 crew and passengersAnother great theory with zero proof.

A drone of some sort, a flying machine such as a Global Hawk or a Cruise Missile, all we know for sure it that it was painted as an american airlines flight, it had only one small rotor, could fit in a 12 foot hole, it could produce an explosive shockwave capable of making a 12 foot hole straight ahead.Lots of theories and still not a bit of proof.

The plane has been substituted with the drone flying near it (as in Operation Northwoods), and the people on board were killed and shipped to the medical facility.
A computer controlled drone was needed because they couldn’t leave that part to a suicide pilot to miss the pentagon and ruin everything at the last second, inserting a decisive human factor in a so big conspiracy was a danger so big and it could easily avoided.
But real people was needed to make the fake calls and provide false, (otherwise unprovable) corroboration that the hijacking really took place, that there were “arabs on board”I'm being repetitive - but no proof here either!

You have many witnesses that talk about a 757, some about a 737, I have some that talk about a small commuter plane, a 12seater.
For sure the paint was the cheapest part of the conspiracy. Again, even Operation Northwoods called for an unmanned flight painted as a commercial airliner. That was 1962.Proof?

A drone of some sort, a flying machine such as a Global Hawk or a Cruise Missile, all we know for sure it that it had only one engine and was filled with explosives and small, random pieces of metal.Proof?

Because the real remains of the crew and passengers were shipped to the medical facility that made the identification of both AA77 and UA93 crew and passengersProof?

There’s no one I’m aware of that has seen UA93 crash. The first to come from nearby found the area already blocked by FBI. Whithin minutes.http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html

The calls are true, the source was not the plane that hit the field in shanksville because cellphone calls were effectively impossible to make in 2001 with that kind of altitude and speed, as the plane passing over cell towers would countinously switch to a celltower after the other, every 30 seconds or so. Making 13 phone calls from the tail of the airplane at over 10000 feet at that speed is simply unbelivableWe have testimony of one of the calls entered into trial, and loved ones repeating the calls they received. We have zero proof to contradict that.

1) How many people would be needed for Operation Northwoods? (all the fake terrorism acts in american cities, the fake airliner drone, the military pilots that would attack the drone airliner and real barges with cuban exules, planning, communications, coverup…)Honestly? I have no idea. I normally don't spend a great deal of time concentrating on the efforts of conspiracies.

2) How many people knew or took part in the Manhattan Project?"Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

3) Why 192 real world architects and engineers tells us that the three collapses have more than ten points in common with controlled demolitions and show none of the elements of gravitational collapses?Because that's what they believe? I don't know. But again, they were neither there or took part in the official investigation, and still provided no proof other than theories.

4) Why former head of NIST fire department asked for a peer review of NIST work on 9/11 ?Many people still want further reviews. It was the worst disaster ever on American soil, and rightfully so we should know everything we can about it to have better preventative measures for the future.

5) Which one of the 5 sides of the pentagon was reinforced against explosions just before the strike, and was so mostly empty?I'm guessing the side where 125 people were killed?

6) Where is the second engine of AA77 ?I have no idea, I'm not an investigator. Where is the first?

7) Why the damage of the rear tail wing of AA77 is missing from the pentagon face?Because it disintegrated upon impact with the building and wasn't strong enough to break the foundation of the structure.

8) Where was Dick Cheney at 9:30, when AA77 was 50 miles out? In command in the PEOC as Mineta testified under oath, or outside it as Dick told us?Here's an HTML version from the official 9/11 Commission report, start on page 38-39

http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:sHwgJh0-VxAJ:www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf+dick+cheney+9:30&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=pub-0982790381073093

9) Why Donald Rumsfeld was in the pentagon lawn just after the hit while his responsabilities called him elsewere to be in command of the hijacking management, and when no one outside the conspiracy would know that AA77 was the last plane to strike that day?Because a catastrophe just struck the building. I don't think you can fault the secretary of defense for being en eyewitness to the unfolding events and trying to assist and/or find out what happened.

10) Why no one in the military was demoted nor even got a reprisal for not acting properly on 9/11?First off, I think it was the air traffic controllers that delayed things, so I'm not even sure the military didn't act properly. But even so, does this prove 9/11 was an inside job?

11) What is the impressive speech Donal Rumsfeld had about missing funds at the pentagon that was later fogot by all media in the wake of 9/11 ?Here's the speech:

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

And an explanation to this conspiracy theory:

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

12) Where were stored the majority of the papers of the Enron trial?So perhaps the government planned 9/11 to cover up Enron scandal? Proof?

13) How much gold there was stored under the Twin Towers and how much gold was recovered from the rubble?Read this:

http://www.911myths.com/loose_change_2nd_ed._a_critical_review_of_the_gold _story_segment.pdf

14) Which one of the things I’ve written so far is the most wrong one, the one that you have strong evidence to the contrary?Almost all of it. It's filled with conspiracies and no proof that the government had a hand in 9/11 whatsoever.

15) Which one of the things I’ve written so far is the second most wrong, another one that you have strong evidence to the contrary?Again, almost everything. I've provided credible proof throughout that 4 planes crashed on 9/11 resulting in over 3,000 American deaths. All the evidence provided supports there being 4 downed airplanes, over 3,000 dead Americans and terrorists responsible for 9/11.

Now I know you likely think I'm dismissing everything you've stated, and you're partially correct. I don't mean to be purposely short and demanding of proof - but it is you who proclaims that 9/11 was an inside job of the US government, so I would expect you to prove that for it to fly.

Sertes

10-08-2007, 04:17 PM

Out of the thousands of people involved in the recovery effort, not a single piece of evidence of bomb making material was recovered.
Yes, except for the two I supplied. If fact the link you posted make me cross the threshold into the straw-man argument of fire temperatures, because the link you posted so much proves my point:

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

How in hell did a temperature of 1,000°C be reached, in a building fire?
A thermite cutting charges can reach 2,000°C in 2 seconds, then it bursts away. When sulphur is added the compound is called thermate, which is even better as a linear cutting charges.
So in posting this link from outside your usual ring of debunker sites you didn’t realize that you are actually supporting the thermate presence claim by BYU professor Steven Jones, Phd.

No proof at all here other than the power down. Here is a response about Scott Forbes:

A 26 hours power down in the upper half of south tower occurred in the weekend prior to the collapse – entered as a fact

I watched the movie. All this might prove is that work was being done inside the building and cement dust was tossed around and made a mess as a result. It doesn't provide a shred of evidence towards bombs or wiring of any kind being implemented.
Sure it might have many explanations.
After the 26 hours power down works there was a lot of cement dust tossed around – entered as a fact

The core of the Twin Towers is shielded from view, demolition experts worked carefully and without anyone noticing by working inside the elevator shafts.
And miles of wiring was a common view in the Twin Towers: it’s the World Trade Center, among the most computerized civil building in the world, miles and miles of telephone cables, computer cables, optic cables. One more, one less, no one would notice from outside. Neither they would a dozen or an hundred.
Of course no one would stop or question any group of engineers or workers escorted by WTC complex security. Would you? Of course not.
So again, a theory, but no proof at all.
You asked for an explanation and I provided one. If you can prove it otherwise, maybe that the space was too narrow for a man to work in, welcome. But for now you must settle that I have an explanation on how it was possible to plant explosives and cutting charges without anyone not part of the conspiracy noticing it

Pentagon

A drone of some sort, a flying machine such as a Global Hawk or a Cruise Missile, all we know for sure it that it was painted as an american airlines flight, it had only one small rotor, could fit in a 12 foot hole, it could produce an explosive shockwave capable of making a 12 foot hole straight ahead.
And no proof of either.
You have still to prove it was a 757 though. You still didn’t answer on which part made the 12 foot punch out hole. First you said the landing gear. Then you switched to the landing gear wheel. Is an explanation that a landing gear wheel half a meter across can make a 4 meters wide circular hole in a concrete wall?

This is what we’re talking about:
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentagon-punchout.gif

You have many witnesses that talk about a 757, some about a 737, I have some that talk about a small commuter plane, a 12seater.
For sure the paint was the cheapest part of the conspiracy. Again, even Operation Northwoods called for an unmanned flight painted as a commercial airliner. That was 1962.
Proof?
Proof of what? I already settled that you have MORE witnesses talking about a 757 than I have who talk about a smaller plane, but I also wrote at that time I had SOME.
It’s just to see who of the witnesses is wrong.

I’ll write it again, for your convenience, leaving out the one in which you succesfully proved me wrong:

Terry Morin
The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I then confirmed that the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building.
http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

Khavkin, D. S.
from an 8th floor high-rise: "At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1540000/1540586.stm

Steve Patterson, 43, graphics artist
saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground.
He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.
The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon...He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.
"It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

There’s no one I’m aware of that has seen UA93 crash. The first to come from nearby found the area already blocked by FBI. Whithin minutes.
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html
Yes, they saw the plane that crashed in shanksville, not UA93. Did you notice that here no one mentioned the size. Just as like I conceded that you have MORE witness who talk about a 757 than me having who talk about a smaller plane, here you have ZERO witness who talk about a big plane. Right?

We have testimony of one of the calls entered into trial, and loved ones repeating the calls they received. We have zero proof to contradict that.

As you have no evidence otherwise. I made it clear from the start that it’s impossible to tell directly if a call originated from AA77 and UA93, you trust your sources, I trust my own that tell me a cellphone call from a plane a that height and at that speed was impossible on 2001, much less 13+1 of them.
I already explained that I support the claim both planes were landed in secure location and people was forced to make those calls from there. This theory might sound extreme to you who didn’t read Operation Northwoods paper, but can you prove this not happened? No.

1) How many people would be needed for Operation Northwoods? (all the fake terrorism acts in american cities, the fake airliner drone, the military pilots that would attack the drone airliner and real barges with cuban exules, planning, communications, coverup…)
Honestly? I have no idea. I normally don't spend a great deal of time concentrating on the efforts of conspiracies.
Well make a guess. Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Make a guess. That was a real plan from the sixties to make false flag terrorism acts in the USA and blame it to the cubans, to support a war and the following invasion. It got de-secreted recently, so take a guess. I’m trying to prove a point toward your question “how many people had to be included in the 9/11 conspiracy”

the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people
Nice. So military can keep a secret when it’s needed. Even to Japanes spies who were actively out to prevent this kind of things from happening, I guess.

3) Why 192 real world architects and engineers tells us that the three collapses have more than ten points in common with controlled demolitions and show none of the elements of gravitational collapses?
Because that's what they believe? I don't know. But again, they were neither there or took part in the official investigation, and still provided no proof other than theories.
No, because that’s what they can prove. Their claims go from timing the collapses, extracting the fall speed, to watching the lateral ejection, to watching collapses that proceed through the path of most resistance, in defiance of the basic laws of physics, to watch as 3 collapsing buildings were completely pulverized. And if you go back to the list, you’ll see that none of the claims need to be part of the official investigation to be proved – they are hardly proved by video, witness and seismic records.
The only one claim I have to prove is the presence of molten metal beneath the 3 WTCs buildings, I told you I’ll do that (I have all material in Italian, I can publish it right away, but I ask you to wait for the translation and formatting, otherwise it’s here http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2043 post by Redazione at “20/9/2007 12:59” )

4) Why former head of NIST fire department asked for a peer review of NIST work on 9/11 ?
Many people still want further reviews. It was the worst disaster ever on American soil, and rightfully so we should know everything we can about it to have better preventative measures for the future.
Yep, he got a little further than that. Please read this carefully, it’s very important.

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/uploaded/james_quintiere__ph__070820_2309.jpg

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. [b]In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."[b]

5) Which one of the 5 sides of the pentagon was reinforced against explosions just before the strike, and was so mostly empty?
I'm guessing the side where 125 people were killed?
The side with the hole.

6) Where is the second engine of AA77 ?
I have no idea, I'm not an investigator. Where is the first?
You said the first one was the half meter long round rotor of this photo (on right the real size of a Rolls-royce PW2000)
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/3-Pent/disintegr/2eng-o.jpg
I asked you where is the second. It's fine to me if you say there's no photo evidence of a second thing like the one pictured on the left

7) Why the damage of the rear tail wing of AA77 is missing from the pentagon face?
Because it disintegrated upon impact with the building and wasn't strong enough to break the foundation of the structure.
Ok, your claim is the rear tail of a plane hitting at 500 mph is not enough to break reinforced windows or leave a mark on the concrete, but it disintegrated upon impact.

8) Where was Dick Cheney at 9:30, when AA77 was 50 miles out? In command in the PEOC as Mineta testified under oath, or outside it as Dick told us?

Here's an HTML version from the official 9/11 Commission report, start on page 38-39

American 77 began turning south, away from the White House, at 9:34. It
continued heading south for roughly a minute,before turning west and begin¬
ning to circle back.This news prompted the Secret Service to order the imme¬
diate evacuation of the Vice President just before 9:36. Agents propelled him
________________________________________
Page 40
40
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
out of his chair and told him he had to get to the bunker.The Vice President
entered the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37.

This is Norman Mineta testimony under oath before the 9/11 Commission
M3q0uZAEd5w

This is him explaining further
edDExK8PpWs

WARNING
Are you implying former Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta lied under oath?

Please keep in mind that the computer who registers access times to the PEOC lost all data due to “a technical failure”.

9) Why Donald Rumsfeld was in the pentagon lawn just after the hit while his responsabilities called him elsewere to be in command of the hijacking management, and when no one outside the conspiracy would know that AA77 was the last plane to strike that day?
Because a catastrophe just struck the building. I don't think you can fault the secretary of defense for being en eyewitness to the unfolding events and trying to assist and/or find out what happened.
No, I fault him of not answering to his duties, which were those of being in charge of the hijacking management, as the orders I published called him for.

10) Why no one in the military was demoted nor even got a reprisal for not acting properly on 9/11?
First off, I think it was the air traffic controllers that delayed things, so I'm not even sure the military didn't act properly. But even so, does this prove 9/11 was an inside job?
Again, a baseless assumption. Traffic controllers were required to phone Donald Rumsfeld for instructions, he never answered.
Please consider some of the evidence I’m giving to you instead of tossing all who doesn’t fill your scheme away. It’s only 45 seconds.
Robert Hordon, a professional flight controller and member of Pilots for 9/11 truth, talking about the call he made for American 11 and United 175
o9XRAtp-bVM

11) What is the impressive speech Donal Rumsfeld had about missing funds at the pentagon that was later fogot by all media in the wake of 9/11 ?
Here's the speech:

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

And an explanation to this conspiracy theory:

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html
The linked site just supports Rumsfeld claim that the $2,300,000,000,000 lost are lost due to obsolete technology. It sounds a little suspicious to me.
Can we settle for: On 9/10 Donald Rumsfeld reported the pentagon cannot track 2,300,000 million dollars in transaction due to obsolete technology?

12) Where were stored the majority of the papers of the Enron trial?
So perhaps the government planned 9/11 to cover up Enron scandal? Proof?
These papers were in WTC7. Maybe you asked what need there was to demolite it.
But where I did make the claim the US gov is behind this conspiracy? I’m sure I didn’t, as I don’t support that claim.

13) How much gold there was stored under the Twin Towers and how much gold was recovered from the rubble?
Read this:

http://www.911myths.com/loose_change_2nd_ed._a_critical_review_of_the_gold _story_segment.pdf
So from the linked article we get Loose Change is inaccurate. Who cares? The linked article doesn’t give an answer.

About $200,000,000 were recovered (fox news)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37858,00.html

$240,000,000 in gold and silver (telegraph)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2001/09/19/cngold19.xml

$750,000,000 in gold and silver were under WTC complex (TimesOnLine, cached)
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/timesonline_gold.html

That gives about 500 million dollars in gold and silver missing or stolen.

Now I know you likely think I'm dismissing everything you've stated, and you're partially correct. I don't mean to be purposely short and demanding of proof - but it is you who proclaims that 9/11 was an inside job of the US government, so I would expect you to prove that for it to fly.
Yes, I think you purposely dismiss every evidence I posted you cannot explain right away with a link from a debunking site.
Think about Robert Hordon speech, Norman Mineta testimony, James Quintiere questioning NIST, William Rodriguez testimony, the next time you’re about to write I don’t give you any evidence.
Take your time, I’m in no hurry, I prefer to go slower if you agree, or even stop at 7 mega-posts instead of 10 posts as stated earlier, I have just to read your answers to the points I raised here and present the evidence of molten metal 40 days after the “collapses”.
We can do however you want.
But don’t tell me I provided no evidence then ignore it, please.

jimnyc

10-08-2007, 05:53 PM

Yes, except for the two I supplied. If fact the link you posted make me cross the threshold into the straw-man argument of fire temperatures, because the link you posted so much proves my point:

How in hell did a temperature of 1,000°C be reached, in a building fire?
A thermite cutting charges can reach 2,000°C in 2 seconds, then it bursts away. When sulphur is added the compound is called thermate, which is even better as a linear cutting charges.
So in posting this link from outside your usual ring of debunker sites you didn’t realize that you are actually supporting the thermate presence claim by BYU professor Steven Jones, Phd.And yet the article I provided states absolutely nothing about "thermate", so don't say it supports your claim unless you can PROVE thermite/thermate was present. Credible documents from investigators will suffice.

A 26 hours power down in the upper half of south tower occurred in the weekend prior to the collapse – entered as a factYes, while most MUCH SMALLER type buildings set for demolition take months to setup. I notice you provided nothing to prove the security was down in any way, shape or form.

Sure it might have many explanations.
After the 26 hours power down works there was a lot of cement dust tossed around – entered as a factYes, it's a fact that there was a power down, and dust remnants. Also a fact that no proof of security being down was found, nor a bit of proof as to anything unusual pointing to bombs or wiring for bombs being installed.

You asked for an explanation and I provided one. If you can prove it otherwise, maybe that the space was too narrow for a man to work in, welcome. But for now you must settle that I have an explanation on how it was possible to plant explosives and cutting charges without anyone not part of the conspiracy noticing itNo, I asked for PROOF, not an explanation. You offered a theory, not proof.

You have still to prove it was a 757 though. You still didn’t answer on which part made the 12 foot punch out hole. First you said the landing gear. Then you switched to the landing gear wheel. Is an explanation that a landing gear wheel half a meter across can make a 4 meters wide circular hole in a concrete wall?Bodies identified on scene - fact. All kinds of the plane parts identified - fact. Eyewitnesses seeing a plane hit the building - fact. Not a shred of evidence proving it was a missile or anything of the sort.

Proof of what? I already settled that you have MORE witnesses talking about a 757 than I have who talk about a smaller plane, but I also wrote at that time I had SOME.
It’s just to see who of the witnesses is wrong.

I’ll write it again, for your convenience, leaving out the one in which you succesfully proved me wrong:

Terry Morin
The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I then confirmed that the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building.
http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

Khavkin, D. S.
from an 8th floor high-rise: "At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1540000/1540586.stm

Steve Patterson, 43, graphics artist
saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground.
He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.
The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon...He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.
"It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.htmlAll these witnesses do is prove there was NO MISSILE used to hit the pentagon. None are airline experts, so it's not suprising that none of all the witnesses agree on what exact kind of plane it was they saw. But the commom demoninator out of all the witnesses is that IT WAS a plane. That combined with the identification of the bodies and various plane parts only goes further to solidify my case.

Yes, they saw the plane that crashed in shanksville, not UA93. Did you notice that here no one mentioned the size. Just as like I conceded that you have MORE witness who talk about a 757 than me having who talk about a smaller plane, here you have ZERO witness who talk about a big plane. Right?But they almost all saw a plane, which once again disproves a missile theory. The fact that so many saw a plane tumbling out of the sky, and parts were identified at the scene, and all the bodies identified, once again proves my point.

As you have no evidence otherwise. I made it clear from the start that it’s impossible to tell directly if a call originated from AA77 and UA93, you trust your sources, I trust my own that tell me a cellphone call from a plane a that height and at that speed was impossible on 2001, much less 13+1 of them.
I already explained that I support the claim both planes were landed in secure location and people was forced to make those calls from there. This theory might sound extreme to you who didn’t read Operation Northwoods paper, but can you prove this not happened? No.Fine, you stick with your story, and I hate to sound harsh, but I'll stick with reality and the facts presented by the experts and those involved in the calls.

Well make a guess. Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Make a guess. That was a real plan from the sixties to make false flag terrorism acts in the USA and blame it to the cubans, to support a war and the following invasion. It got de-secreted recently, so take a guess. I’m trying to prove a point toward your question “how many people had to be included in the 9/11 conspiracy”With the magnitude of what happened on 9/11, I still say it would take thousands. But that doesn't matter, because although you keep bringing up "Northwoods", no proof is being provided to show anything other than a horrible terrorist attacked performed on 4 hijacked planes.

Nice. So military can keep a secret when it’s needed. Even to Japanes spies who were actively out to prevent this kind of things from happening, I guess.And your belief is that 130,000 people would have kept quiet if something catastrophic took place?

No, because that’s what they can prove. Their claims go from timing the collapses, extracting the fall speed, to watching the lateral ejection, to watching collapses that proceed through the path of most resistance, in defiance of the basic laws of physics, to watch as 3 collapsing buildings were completely pulverized. And if you go back to the list, you’ll see that none of the claims need to be part of the official investigation to be proved – they are hardly proved by video, witness and seismic records.
The only one claim I have to prove is the presence of molten metal beneath the 3 WTCs buildings, I told you I’ll do that (I have all material in Italian, I can publish it right away, but I ask you to wait for the translation and formatting, otherwise it’s here http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2043 post by Redazione at “20/9/2007 12:59” )And yet all the professionals, engineers and inspectors ACTUALLY INVOLVED all agree on what occured that day, and none of them claim it was from bombs.

Yep, he got a little further than that. Please read this carefully, it’s very important.James Quintiere wants the data archived and a peer review performed. He has a lot of questions about the investigation and conclusions. But even he offers zero proof to show that any bombs were used to bring any of the buildings down.

The side with the hole.Yes, the side with the hole, where 125 people inside were killed. This proves absolutely nothing other than the location of the crash and how many people inside that it killed.

You said the first one was the half meter long round rotor of this photo (on right the real size of a Rolls-royce PW2000)

I asked you where is the second. It's fine to me if you say there's no photo evidence of a second thing like the one pictured on the leftUmmm... NO. The evidence I provided showed the picture of a COMPONENT of the engine, and the article provided went on further to discuss the engine, the various components and basically proving what we actually saw.

While I can't provide a second engine, I can provide plenty of photgraphic evidence of a plane's existence:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Ok, your claim is the rear tail of a plane hitting at 500 mph is not enough to break reinforced windows or leave a mark on the concrete, but it disintegrated upon impact.Yes, that's my claim, and that of the experts.

This is Norman Mineta testimony under oath before the 9/11 Commission

This is him explaining further

WARNING
Are you implying former Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta lied under oath?

Please keep in mind that the computer who registers access times to the PEOC lost all data due to “a technical failure”.So what are you trying to prove? That Cheney was aware of a plane and should have evacuated the Pentagon? Claim failure and poor judgement all you like if that's the case, but it still proves nothing about it being an inside job, but it does reinforce the testimony that it was in fact an airplane that hit the pentagon and not a missile.

No, I fault him of not answering to his duties, which were those of being in charge of the hijacking management, as the orders I published called him for.And perhaps he was in constant communication with emergency management and still actively directing? This still doesn't prove anything.

Again, a baseless assumption. Traffic controllers were required to phone Donald Rumsfeld for instructions, he never answered.
Please consider some of the evidence I’m giving to you instead of tossing all who doesn’t fill your scheme away. It’s only 45 seconds.
Robert Hordon, a professional flight controller and member of Pilots for 9/11 truth, talking about the call he made for American 11 and United 175Robert Hordon hasn't been a traffic controller since 1981! HE MADE NO SUCH CALL. He simply speculated about the phone calls.

The linked site just supports Rumsfeld claim that the $2,300,000,000,000 lost are lost due to obsolete technology. It sounds a little suspicious to me.
Can we settle for: On 9/10 Donald Rumsfeld reported the pentagon cannot track 2,300,000 million dollars in transaction due to obsolete technology?Cannot track because "it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible" - yes.

These papers were in WTC7. Maybe you asked what need there was to demolite it.
But where I did make the claim the US gov is behind this conspiracy? I’m sure I didn’t, as I don’t support that claim.I'm not sure what stating these papers were stored there proves then?

So from the linked article we get Loose Change is inaccurate. Who cares? The linked article doesn’t give an answer.

About $200,000,000 were recovered (fox news)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37858,00.html

$240,000,000 in gold and silver (telegraph)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2001/09/19/cngold19.xml

$750,000,000 in gold and silver were under WTC complex (TimesOnLine, cached)
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/timesonline_gold.html

That gives about 500 million dollars in gold and silver missing or stolen.And who is it missing from, and why aren't they jumping up and down about it being stolen to this day?

Yes, I think you purposely dismiss every evidence I posted you cannot explain right away with a link from a debunking site.
Think about Robert Hordon speech, Norman Mineta testimony, James Quintiere questioning NIST, William Rodriguez testimony, the next time you’re about to write I don’t give you any evidence.
Take your time, I’m in no hurry, I prefer to go slower if you agree, or even stop at 7 mega-posts instead of 10 posts as stated earlier, I have just to read your answers to the points I raised here and present the evidence of molten metal 40 days after the “collapses”.
We can do however you want.
But don’t tell me I provided no evidence then ignore it, please.Robert Hordon - Hasn't been an air traffic controller since 1981 and made no such call as you stated.

Mineta testimony "might" imply failures were made, but provides zero evidence of any type of inside job.

William Rodriguez - A janitor, not an expert! - and you might want to read the following link to see how some of the story has changed.

http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html

Sertes

10-09-2007, 02:31 PM

And yet the article I provided states absolutely nothing about "thermate", so don't say it supports your claim unless you can PROVE thermite/thermate was present. Credible documents from investigators will suffice.
It supports my claims because 1000°C cannot be reached in a building fire like this:
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7firesnorthface.jpg

You’re welcome to post photo evidence of bigger fires at WTC7.
It will end like the “gaping hole 25% of the side of WTC7” claim by NIST’s Sunder we covered earlier.

Yes, while most MUCH SMALLER type buildings set for demolition take months to setup. I notice you provided nothing to prove the security was down in any way, shape or form.

“A 26 hours power down in the upper half of south tower occurred in the weekend prior to the collapse – entered as a fact” will suffice, even without the direct evidence that security was cut off.

Yes, it's a fact that there was a power down, and dust remnants. Also a fact that no proof of security being down was found, nor a bit of proof as to anything unusual pointing to bombs or wiring for bombs being installed.
Ok, that’s settled.

You have still to prove it was a 757 though. You still didn’t answer on which part made the 12 foot punch out hole. First you said the landing gear. Then you switched to the landing gear wheel. Is an explanation that a landing gear wheel half a meter across can make a 4 meters wide circular hole in a concrete wall?
Bodies identified on scene - fact. All kinds of the plane parts identified - fact. Eyewitnesses seeing a plane hit the building - fact. Not a shred of evidence proving it was a missile or anything of the sort.

I noticed that when you want to dodge a difficult question to which you have no answer you simply go back picturing a bigger scene.
First, I’m asking it for the fourth time: what is your claim here, which part made the 12 foot round punch-out hole, the landing gear pole or the landing gear wheel?
Second: Bodies identified on scene is not a fact. Bodies were sent to a medical facility, then identified there. Not on scene, at the pentagon. That’s the fact
Third: The 12 foot round punch out hole we’re discussing right there is the evidence of a shockwave. You dodged my question and reversed the issue.

I already settled that you have MORE witnesses talking about a 757 than I have who talk about a smaller plane, but I also wrote at that time I had SOME.
It’s just to see who of the witnesses is wrong.

All these witnesses do is prove there was NO MISSILE used to hit the pentagon. None are airline experts, so it's not suprising that none of all the witnesses agree on what exact kind of plane it was they saw. But the commom demoninator out of all the witnesses is that IT WAS a plane. That combined with the identification of the bodies and various plane parts only goes further to solidify my case.

Again it seems that you cannot cover details and have to remind again and again the other issues like body identification even when discussing plane size.
Well, as to the first part of your answer, in fact I didn’t only say a missile, I said a cruise missile painted as an AA flight. The cruise missile has wings, and can be disguised as a plane.
Don’t you think they can make a missile look like this:
http://www.crono911.net/Vign/B52model.jpg

And I’m not the only one who talks about a missile at the pentagon:

“Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.”
Donald Rumsfeld, during an interview at the pentagon.
Source: The department of defense website!
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845

Fine, you stick with your story, and I hate to sound harsh, but I'll stick with reality and the facts presented by the experts and those involved in the calls.

With the magnitude of what happened on 9/11, I still say it would take thousands. But that doesn't matter, because although you keep bringing up "Northwoods", no proof is being provided to show anything other than a horrible terrorist attacked performed on 4 hijacked planes.

Again, dodging the question and answering another, easier one.
How many people would be needed for the Operation Northwoods conspiracy?
Can you answer to this, only? I’m trying to prove a point here.

And your belief is that 130,000 people would have kept quiet if something catastrophic took place?

No, my belief is that the military world is structured very differently from the civilian one. You have a strict piramidal chain of command, you don’t make questions, you follow orders or people die. And your visibility of the bigger plan is limited on the level of this pyramid you live on. Only the top have access to all data and can make sense of it, those working under them usually have a very limited understanding of the goals of what they’re doing.
And if a conspiracy so big was kept secret even with spies actually trying to find this, smaller conspiracies like Operation Northwoods or 9/11 could actually take place and remain secret for a very long time.

And yet all the professionals, engineers and inspectors ACTUALLY INVOLVED all agree on what occured that day, and none of them claim it was from bombs.
Fear is a powerful weapon, and we only know the papers that got published, not the individual thinking of those professionals, engineers and inspectors actually involved.

James Quintiere wants the data archived and a peer review performed. He has a lot of questions about the investigation and conclusions. But even he offers zero proof to show that any bombs were used to bring any of the buildings down.
He offers zero proof? He’s asking for a peer review of NIST work! And he’s asking NIST to provide some shred of official answer to why and how WTC7 fell!

“I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Yes, the side with the hole, where 125 people inside were killed. This proves absolutely nothing other than the location of the crash and how many people inside that it killed.
This proves nothing to you, maybe. To me it’s just another fact that’s settled, and not debated – the “plane” struck in the side of the pentagon that recently was reinforced against explosions.

Ummm... NO. The evidence I provided showed the picture of a COMPONENT of the engine, and the article provided went on further to discuss the engine, the various components and basically proving what we actually saw.

While I can't provide a second engine, I can provide plenty of photgraphic evidence of a plane's existence:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Useless, I’m not supporting the “no plane theory”. I’m supporting the “no 757 theory”, and the fact there’s photo evidence of only one small rotor is all I asked for – entered as a fact. All the pieces you linked could come both from a Global Hawk or from a Tomahawk Cruise missile disguised as an AA airliner.

This is Norman Mineta testimony under oath before the 9/11 Commission

This is him explaining further

WARNING
Are you implying former Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta lied under oath?

Please keep in mind that the computer who registers access times to the PEOC lost all data due to “a technical failure”.
So what are you trying to prove? That Cheney was aware of a plane and should have evacuated the Pentagon? Claim failure and poor judgement all you like if that's the case, but it still proves nothing about it being an inside job, but it does reinforce the testimony that it was in fact an airplane that hit the pentagon and not a missile.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report you linked either the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong and Cheney can be held accountable for the deaths of those inside the pentagon (to say the least!) OR that former transportation minister Norman Mineta lied under oath at the 9/11 commission and can held accountable for that.

The 9/11 commission report states that:
- Cheney didn't enter PEOC (white house bunker) before the pentagon hit
- Norad was warned of the plane only 3 minutes before, and by chanche
- FAA instead warned about a phantom flight (AA11, which already hit WTC) and the interceptors were directed toward it

Mineta: So I went into the White House and someone said, "You have to be briefed by Dick Clark in the Situation Room." So I went in there, he talked to me for four or five minutes, and he said, "You have got to go to the PEOC." I said, "What's the PEOC?" He said, "That's the Presidential Emergency Operations Center." I said, "I don't know where that is or what it is." There was a Secret Service agent standing there, says, "I will take you." Well, it's that bunker that's way under the White House.
I got to the PEOC and the Vice President was already there. Big conference table, and there are phones all along here. I took a phone and called my office, kept it an open line, and then I took another phone, called FAA -- Federal Aviation Administration Operations Center -- and kept it at open line and kept working the two phones.
Some young man came in and said to the Vice President, "There's a plane 50 miles out coming towards D.C." So I said to Monty Belger, who is the No. 2 at FAA, I said, "Monty, what do you have on radar on this plane coming in?" He said, "Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "It's somewhere beyond Great Falls right now." Then, the young man came in and said it's 20 miles away.

So Mineta testimony tell us that:
1) Mineta was in the PEOC personally
2) Dick Cheney was there
3) FAA, White House, him and the vice president all knew the location of AA77, live.

And since
1) Mineta is phoning FAA number two in command, which is following the unidentified target in its trajectory toward the capital.
2) At 9:25 a man enters the bunker to inform Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out
3) At Langley, 105 miles away, Brad Derrig and Dean Eckmann got the order to scramble and will effectively be airborne at 9:30.
4) We have a target followed on radar, vice president knows that, and military fighters are in flight.
F16 flies at 1500 mph, even at half speed they could have intercepted the plane, which is a sitting duck against F16, and after 2 hits on the towers…
all conditions to down the plane and defend Washington D.C. are effective, if indeed the order was a “shoot down order”
It didn’t happen

Robert Hordon, a professional flight controller and member of Pilots for 9/11 truth, talking about the call he made for American 11 and United 175

Robert Hordon hasn't been a traffic controller since 1981! HE MADE NO SUCH CALL. He simply speculated about the phone calls.
You’re right here, and I was wrong. Point taken.

The linked site just supports Rumsfeld claim that the $2,300,000,000,000 lost are lost due to obsolete technology. It sounds a little suspicious to me.
Can we settle for: On 9/10 Donald Rumsfeld reported the pentagon cannot track 2,300,000 million dollars in transaction due to obsolete technology?
Cannot track because "it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible" - yes.[/quote]
Ok, “On 9/10 Donald Rumsfeld reported the pentagon cannot track 2,300,000 million dollars in transactions because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible”

And who is it missing from, and why aren't they jumping up and down about it being stolen to this day?
Ask them, the last link provides you a list of companies that had gold and silver valuables stored under the WTC complex.

Robert Hordon - Hasn't been an air traffic controller since 1981 and made no such call as you stated.
It hurts.

Mineta testimony "might" imply failures were made, but provides zero evidence of any type of inside job.
This instead should hurt you. If Mineta is right it proves the inside job all by itself.

William Rodriguez - A janitor, not an expert! - and you might want to read the following link to see how some of the story has changed.

I'm not sure what stating these papers were stored there proves then?
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html

A head janitor trusted with the master key of WTC complex, please.
And he’s an expert of the buildings.
And he knows the difference between up and down.
And the explosion pushed him UPWARD, seven seconds BEFORE the hit high above
Your link forget to mention he was PUSHED UPWARD.

Also we lost track of the problem that no one in the military was demoted for not acting properly, all the blame went to FAA. Shall we give them even the blame for not stopping the terrorists identified a year before 9/11?

Rep Congressman Kurt Weldon, on Able Danger case
NlLKu8VtfIc

jimnyc

10-09-2007, 03:53 PM

It supports my claims because 1000°C cannot be reached in a building fire like this:

You’re welcome to post photo evidence of bigger fires at WTC7.
It will end like the “gaping hole 25% of the side of WTC7” claim by NIST’s Sunder we covered earlier.You're welcome to post your credentials showing you have an educated fire investigation background beyond the official investigators who clearly explained why the building fell.

“A 26 hours power down in the upper half of south tower occurred in the weekend prior to the collapse – entered as a fact” will suffice, even without the direct evidence that security was cut off.So now the conspiracy theory that all security systems were down and doors all open has been removed.

I noticed that when you want to dodge a difficult question to which you have no answer you simply go back picturing a bigger scene.
First, I’m asking it for the fourth time: what is your claim here, which part made the 12 foot round punch-out hole, the landing gear pole or the landing gear wheel?
Second: Bodies identified on scene is not a fact. Bodies were sent to a medical facility, then identified there. Not on scene, at the pentagon. That’s the fact
Third: The 12 foot round punch out hole we’re discussing right there is the evidence of a shockwave. You dodged my question and reversed the issue.I'm making neither claim. Unlike you, I'm not claiming to have knowledge beyond my expertise. Hundreds of investigators scoured the scene and not one claims anything other than the hijacked plane hitting the building. The body parts were found at the scene and later identified at a medical facility, yes. Now all you have to do is give credible proof of any kind that supports your theory of bodies from elsewhere being shipped to said facility. And lastly, I'm not dodging a damn thing. I'm not an expert on the issues, and you simply repeating ridiculous conspiracy theories from other sites without any proof whatsoever dosn't make you an expert either. I've seen every single argument you've brought to the table thus far on all the wacky conspiracy sites and never has any of them held up to scrutiny.

Again it seems that you cannot cover details and have to remind again and again the other issues like body identification even when discussing plane size.
Well, as to the first part of your answer, in fact I didn’t only say a missile, I said a cruise missile painted as an AA flight. The cruise missile has wings, and can be disguised as a plane.
Don’t you think they can make a missile look like this:Can they? Perhaps. Now all you have to do is give us credible proof to support your conspiracy theory, which you've yet to even come close to doing.

And I’m not the only one who talks about a missile at the pentagon:

Donald Rumsfeld, during an interview at the pentagon.
Source: The department of defense website!
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845First off, thanks for the link, we now have our reasoning for why Rumsfeld was saw on the lawn of the pentagon:

Rumsfeld: Well, I was sitting here and the building was struck, and you could feel the impact of it very clearly, and I don't know what made me do anything I did, to be honest with you. I just do it instinctive. I looked out the window, saw nothing here, and then went down the hall until the smoke was too bad, then to a stairwell down and went outside and saw what had happened. Asked a person who'd seen it, and he told me that a plane had flown into it.

I had been aware of a plane going into the World Trade Center, and I saw people on the grass, and we just, we tried to put them in stretchers and then move them out across the grass towards the road and lifted them over a jersey wall so the people on that side could stick them into the ambulances.And surely you're not suggesting Rumsfeld let the cat out of the bag and meant a missle hit the building as direct evidence? He stated the hijackers were on an AA flight with American citizens, then referred to it hitting the pentagon and similarly at the WTC's. Sounds to me like he was comparing the use of the hijacked airplane to a missle. Nonetheless, the president of the USA himself can state he thinks it was a missle and I would laugh at him as well due to the overwhelming amount of evidence found at the scene proving it was a hijacked jet filled with passengers.

Again, dodging the question and answering another, easier one.
How many people would be needed for the Operation Northwoods conspiracy?
Can you answer to this, only? I’m trying to prove a point here.I'm sorry I can't prove your point here but I'm not just going to throw out a number about a conspiracy theory that I haven't studied, nor care to. You're making the claim, how about you just prove your own point?

No, my belief is that the military world is structured very differently from the civilian one. You have a strict piramidal chain of command, you don’t make questions, you follow orders or people die. And your visibility of the bigger plan is limited on the level of this pyramid you live on. Only the top have access to all data and can make sense of it, those working under them usually have a very limited understanding of the goals of what they’re doing.
And if a conspiracy so big was kept secret even with spies actually trying to find this, smaller conspiracies like Operation Northwoods or 9/11 could actually take place and remain secret for a very long time.I love the "A few good men" quote for effect! "You follow orders or people die"! But sorry, this all still proves nothing.

Fear is a powerful weapon, and we only know the papers that got published, not the individual thinking of those professionals, engineers and inspectors actually involved.So we have documentation from professionals, and another conspiracy theory that maybe some of them think otherwise. Feel free to post proof of any of these professionals involved in the investigation who thought otherwise.

He offers zero proof? He’s asking for a peer review of NIST work! And he’s asking NIST to provide some shred of official answer to why and how WTC7 fell!

“I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”Asking for a peer review is not proof. Stating that the official conclusion is questionable is proof. You truly need to understand the difference between questioning results, and stating that it was perhaps an inside job.

This proves nothing to you, maybe. To me it’s just another fact that’s settled, and not debated – the “plane” struck in the side of the pentagon that recently was reinforced against explosions.Proof of where the plane hit, nothing more and nothing less. Adds zero proof to anything involving a conspiracy.

Useless, I’m not supporting the “no plane theory”. I’m supporting the “no 757 theory”, and the fact there’s photo evidence of only one small rotor is all I asked for – entered as a fact. All the pieces you linked could come both from a Global Hawk or from a Tomahawk Cruise missile disguised as an AA airliner.Provide credible proof from the investigation showing a missle hit the pentagon. Not theories, hard data will suffice.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report you linked either the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong and Cheney can be held accountable for the deaths of those inside the pentagon (to say the least!) OR that former transportation minister Norman Mineta lied under oath at the 9/11 commission and can held accountable for that.

The 9/11 commission report states that:
- Cheney didn't enter PEOC (white house bunker) before the pentagon hit
- Norad was warned of the plane only 3 minutes before, and by chanche
- FAA instead warned about a phantom flight (AA11, which already hit WTC) and the interceptors were directed toward it

So Mineta testimony tell us that:
1) Mineta was in the PEOC personally
2) Dick Cheney was there
3) FAA, White House, him and the vice president all knew the location of AA77, live.

And since
1) Mineta is phoning FAA number two in command, which is following the unidentified target in its trajectory toward the capital.
2) At 9:25 a man enters the bunker to inform Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out
3) At Langley, 105 miles away, Brad Derrig and Dean Eckmann got the order to scramble and will effectively be airborne at 9:30.
4) We have a target followed on radar, vice president knows that, and military fighters are in flight.
F16 flies at 1500 mph, even at half speed they could have intercepted the plane, which is a sitting duck against F16, and after 2 hits on the towers…
all conditions to down the plane and defend Washington D.C. are effective, if indeed the order was a “shoot down order”
It didn’t happenProve their was a shoot down order and Cheney ordered against it. I see a lot of mumbo jumbo here and maybe a few questionable calls that could have been decided in a better manner, but absolutely nothing to prove there was an inside job of any sort.

You’re right here, and I was wrong. Point taken.I know, his story has been used by many conspiracy theorists over the past several years. I guess none of them figured to do a little research before restating the claims as fact.

Ask them, the last link provides you a list of companies that had gold and silver valuables stored under the WTC complex.And yet no reports of any of them claiming anything missing or stolen.

It hurts.Might I suggest a little due diligence next time before simply restating claims made on conspiracy sites.

This instead should hurt you. If Mineta is right it proves the inside job all by itself.If that were the case it would be on the main stream media all over the world. Why isn't it? Because it proves nothing of the sort.

A head janitor trusted with the master key of WTC complex, please.
And he’s an expert of the buildings.
And he knows the difference between up and down.
And the explosion pushed him UPWARD, seven seconds BEFORE the hit high above
Your link forget to mention he was PUSHED UPWARD.So if I had a master key to the WTC that would make me an expert? Let's place you in a chair on a cement floor in the basement of a building. Now lets allow a huge elevator free fall from 78 floors above and crash into the sub-basement near where you're sitting. How much would you like to wager that both yourself and things around you get propelled upwards as a result of the incredible collision that ensues.

Also we lost track of the problem that no one in the military was demoted for not acting properly, all the blame went to FAA. Shall we give them even the blame for not stopping the terrorists identified a year before 9/11?Last I checked, it was 16 hijackers that crashed planes that day, why should someone in the military take the fall?

Rep Congressman Kurt Weldon, on Able Danger caseSo this supposed suppression of evidence took place in 2000. So now the theory now grows to involve the Clinton administration as well?

A few snippets on Able Danger and then the link:

In their book "Without Precedent", 9/11 Commission leaders Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said the information had been investigated but didn't stand up.

Another item that surfaced in early July was the "Able Danger" Department of Defense surveillance program that our staff had been briefed on in Afghanistan. On July 12, Dietrich Snell interviewed Captain Scott Phillpott, who requested the meeting. At that point, our staff had received all of the Department of Defense documents on Able Danger and had found no mention of Atta, though there had been mention of the al Qaeda operative Mohammed Atef.

Phillpott told Snell he recalled seeing the name and photo of Mohammed Atta on an "analyst's notebook chart" involved in Able Danger before 9/11 - in other words, Able Danger had managed to get Mohammed Atta under surveillance. Phillpott said he saw this chart only briefly, and that it dated from the period February - April 2000.

There was no documentary evidence whatsoever to back up Phillpott's sensational claim. Phillpott himself had not performed the analysis, not could he explain what information had led to this supposed identification of Atta by Able Danger. In addition to the lack of documentary evidence from Able Danger, there was no corroboration of Phillpott's account by any information from within the U.S. government, or by German government sources that had tracked the Hamburg cell. Phillpott's account also failed to match up with detailed evidence compiled by our staff documenting Atta's travels, activities, and entry into the United States, including from the INS and State Department records. Snell concluded that the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant inclusion in the report or further investigation. This conclusion was not a challenge to Captain Phillpott's good intentions; the tip he provided just did not check out. Page 294-295 Without Precedenthttp://www.911myths.com/index.php/Able_Danger

The official military report seemed to back this up, stating that "the evidence did not support assertions that Able Danger identified the September 11, 2001, terrorists nearly a year before the attack".http://www.dodig.osd.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf

Sertes

10-10-2007, 03:31 PM

And lastly, I'm not dodging a damn thing.

- Which part of AA77 made the 12 foot punch-out round hole at the pentagon?

- Where was Dick Cheney at 9:25 on 9/11/2001 ?

- Which block will reach ground first, the left or the right one?

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4955/untitled2at0.jpg

jimnyc

10-10-2007, 03:43 PM

Which part of AA77 made the 12 foot punch-out round hole at the pentagon?

Not sure myself as I'm not an investigator. Read the official reports. What I do know is there is tons of proof that an airplane hit the pentagon and not one bit of proof of it being anything but an airplane. Not one thing from investigators backs up the theory of any type of missile.

Where was Dick Cheney at 9:25 on 9/11/2001?

I wasn't standing next to him so I can't say for absolute certainty. What I do know is that regardless of your claims as to where he was there still exists ZERO proof of any inside job.

Which block will reach ground first, the left or the right one?

I'm not a physicist but I would imagine the one on the right. But your claims that the entire building fell completely at once doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You apparently didn't want to watch the film I linked to earlier in the thread where it clearly showed the core of the building remaining for quite some time as the surrounding parts fell around it, and the core went last. But even more importantly, throughout the thousands of hours of investigations and thousands of investigators involved, not a shred of proof exists pointing to anything other than the buildings collapsing due to being his by a hijacked plane and the ensuing damage.

Your arguments are getting farther and farther apart as we're supposed to commit to 2 replies per day. And now you drop 90% of the debate in your last reply. Either you are losing interest or you are conceding you have zero proof to backup your assertions that 9/11 was an inside job.

Sertes

10-10-2007, 05:26 PM

Which part of AA77 made the 12 foot punch-out round hole at the pentagon?
I asked five times which part of AA77 created the 12-foot round punch-out hole in the pentagon third ring.
This is your first answer:

Here ya go:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html
Some photo of a landing gear pole. When I asked “why it’s so dark out there” (outside the third ring) you changed your claim to:

That's it, "it's dark out there"? But since that isn't acceptable for you, here's another page that perfectly describes things for you, AND includes an outdoor picture of a portion of the landing gear:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0290.shtml
But that shows a landing gear wheel.
When I asked which one of the two, because it seems so unbelivable that a landing gear wheel could produce a 12 foot round hole in a concrete wall (after already hitting one in entering the pentagon, then navigating his way through a forest of columns) you dodged at first and later concluded:

Not sure myself as I'm not an investigator. Read the official reports. What I do know is there is tons of proof that an airplane hit the pentagon and not one bit of proof of it being anything but an airplane. Not one thing from investigators backs up the theory of any type of missile.
So, at least you’re not sure. You back off to other evidence to demonstrate your theory. I think this point is mine.

Where was Dick Cheney at 9:25 on 9/11/2001?

I wasn't standing next to him so I can't say for absolute certainty. What I do know is that regardless of your claims as to where he was there still exists ZERO proof of any inside job.
You completely dodged this one, and again you got back to the bigger picture for self-defense.
Rest assured as this is my smoking gun of the inside job, I’ll cover it in detail in my last post, tomorrow evening, italian time.

Which block will reach ground first, the left or the right one?
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4955/untitled2at0.jpg

I'm not a physicist but I would imagine the one on the right. But your claims that the entire building fell completely at once doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You apparently didn't want to watch the film I linked to earlier in the thread where it clearly showed the core of the building remaining for quite some time as the surrounding parts fell around it, and the core went last. But even more importantly, throughout the thousands of hours of investigations and thousands of investigators involved, not a shred of proof exists pointing to anything other than the buildings collapsing due to being his by a hijacked plane and the ensuing damage.

No, you’re wrong, they reach ground simultaneously. At least according to the NIST section you quoted:

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
Maybe you'll not so sure, now.

Evidence of explosives in the basement
I promised evidence of “Molten Steel, found at the basement of the three buildings, as much as 40 days after the collapse”, as EVIDENCE of temperatures even greater than burning jetfuel, which even NIST concedes, burned out in 6-10 minutes. You can believe that furniture, computers, carpets can burn hotter than jetfuel kerosene. I don’t.

---

Dead On Arrival

The NIST 9/11 Report on the WTC Collapse

By Mark H. Gaffney
Note to the reader: The following is a critique of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse. The 43 volume NIST report was the result of a 3 year investigation, and was released in September 2005. It remains the official US government explanation for why the WTC collapsed on 9/11. As you are about to discover, the report itself collapses under scrutiny. There is no doubt that the NIST investigation was politically controlled by limiting its scope, thereby making the truth unobtainable. This is one way to neuter an investigation.

12/21/06 -- -- Fires raged at ground zero for many weeks after 9/11. In fact, it was not until December 19, 2001 that the NYC fire marshall declared the fires extinguished.

The fires burned long into the cleanup. The removal of steel beams and debris from the top of the pile allowed oxygen to reach the fires smoldering below. As a result, the flames often flared up, hampering workers on site. Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer, made note of this in his 2006 retrospective book, Aftermath. Armed with his trusty camera Meyerowitz roamed ground zero for months following the attack. Police repeatedly ejected him, but he kept returning in order to document what had happened. Eventually Meyerowitz amassed an impressive photographic record. In his fine book he remarks that the ground in places was so hot it melted the workmen’s rubber boots.

But Meyerowitz was hardly the first to comment on the pile’s incredible residual heat. The first accounts of molten steel came just hours after the attack: from the search and rescue teams who were among the first on the scene. Sarah Atlas, a member of New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue, was one of these emergency responders. Sarah reported seeing molten steel in the pile even as she searched in vain for

---

K-9/11 Tracking the Rescuers’ Trauma

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmpages/911/molten/hunt.jpeg

Even before the twin towers of the World Trade Center fell, Sarah Atlas and her canine partner, Anna, a black-faced German shepherd, were deployed by New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue. By the end of the day on September 11, they were at Ground Zero, where they stayed for ten days in a fruitless search for survivors.

“The [NYFD] people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. She wore a respirator to filter out the smoke, dust, and fumes, but Anna worked without a mask to sniff out places where the broken dead lay. Anna is a live-find dog, but she developed a “truly intent stare” that Atlas came to recognize as her response to catching the scent of a corpse. Mostly they found parts.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

---

Many have denied the existence of molten steel at ground zero. But there are too many eyewitness accounts to dismiss, including the testimony of engineers, city officials and other competent professionals who toured the ruin. One of these, Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”[2]

A similar account came from Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who helped design the WTC. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that was under contract to the WTC at the time of the tragedy. In a keynote address Robertson reportedly told the Structural Engineers Association of Utah that: “...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”[3] Public health officials/experts also toured the scene of destruction. Alison Geyh Ph.D., an Assistant Professor of Environmental Health at Johns Hopkins, was with one of these teams. She wrote that “In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”[4] The fact was even reported to the 9/11 Commission by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing “molten metal” during a walkthrough.[5]

The evidence accumulated even as the cleanup progressed. Work crews removing the mountain of debris, piece by piece, discovered pools of molten steel beneath the pile, where the towers had stood. One pool was found at the bottom of the elevator shafts. Some of the pools were not found until 3, 4, even 5 weeks after 9/11.

Contractors working on site confirmed these discoveries. Such as Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing New York, who was one of four contractors engaged by New York City to handle the cleanup. During an August 2002 interview Tully told the American Free Press that indeed workmen had seen the molten pools.[6] The same interview included a statement by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who, years before, ramrodded the cleanup of the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Loizeaux was called in by Tully to draft the cleanup plan for the WTC site. Loizeaux said, “Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements.” Molten steel was also found under WTC 7.

These pools of molten metal have never been explained. Loizeaux told the American Free Press that the continuing fires were fueled by “paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they ‘pancaked’ into the basement.” Manuel Garcia, a physicist, has suggested that cars left in parking garages under the WTC contained gasoline that may have fueled the fires.[7] Both are probably correct. But none of these fires were hot enough to melt steel. Indeed, none of the combustibles in the wreckage burned anywhere near the melting point of construction grade steel beams (2800 °F). As noted, the smoldering fires for the most part were oxygen-starved.

The persistence of molten steel under the WTC for many weeks is extraordinary–––and anomalous. Evidently, the hot spots under the wreckage were not in the least fazed by heavy rain on September 14-15, nor by the millions of gallons of water that firemen and cleanup crews sprayed on the smoking ruins. Five days after the attack the US Geological Survey (USGS) found dozens of “hot spots” in the wreckage via remote sensing, i.e., an infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS). The two hottest spots were under WTC 2 and WTC 7. The USGS recorded surface temperatures as high as 747°C (1376°F)).[8] The molten pools below the pile must have been at least twice as hot––––hot enough to evaporate rain and the water sprayed on the pile, long before it reached the bottom.

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmpages/911/molten/therma3bo.jpg

Notes

1. Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002. <www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html>
2. Dr Keith Eaton, The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002, #6.
3. James Williams, “WTC a Structural Success,” SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001, #3.
4. Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, late fall, 2001. When I contacted Dr Geyh she confirmed the report. She stated that people involved in the clean up effort told her they had seen molten steel in the debris.
5. Commissioner Holden’s testimony before the 911 Commission is posted at http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030401-holden.htm
6. Christopher Bollyn, “Seismic Evidence Points to Underground
Explosions Causing WTC Collapse” American Free Press, August 28, 2002.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm
7. Manuel Garcia, “The Thermodynamics of 9/11,” November 28, 2006. posted at http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html
8. The results are posted at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

---

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmpages/911/molten/2beams-o.jpg
“Thousands of degrees are needed to bend steel this way” says the welder in the interview.

---

Danger in the Dust

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmpages/911/molten/danger.jpg
It is 4 a.m. in New York City as four researchers from the School enter the site of the World Trade Center disaster on foot. Each is lugging from 50 to 90 pounds of air-monitoring equipment onto Ground Zero. In the dark, the tangled pile of wreckage takes on a distinctly hellish cast.

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

---

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION

“Once the area was cleaned, normal commercial trash collections resumed by the haulers that are licensed and regulated by the Trade Waste Commissioner,” Dawkins says. But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris.

Kathy Dawkins, NYDS spokeswoman.
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

---

Ron Burger - Public Health Advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

The National Environmental Health Association’s paper “Messages in the Dust” quotes Burger: “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster.”

---

Guy Lounsbury - Member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing:

National Guard Magazine article written by Lounsbury (excerpt): “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802#continue

---

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmpages/911/molten/seau3b.jpg
As of 21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.

---

After heroic efforts at the World Trade Center, New York City’s Fire Department had the Herculean task of documenting human remains found in the rubble.

Anyone at the site—a policeman, a crane operator or a Federal Emergency Management Agency official—who discovered a body part had to notify the fire department.

A firefighter would then collect the remains and write down a tracking number, date, time, description and location.

The Fire Department mapped Ground Zero into grids and cells. A fireman might locate the remains as “in grid B, cell 7,” write it on a slip of paper and take it to the quadrant command center. A FEMA agent would then transcribe the note and enter it into a database.

Not only was this laborious for the firefighters, but the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn.

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.

http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news

---

Firemen commenting molten metal
8X5F5PttzJY

---

This one is important
M5n4splER9E

jimnyc

10-10-2007, 06:05 PM

Which part of AA77 made the 12 foot punch-out round hole at the pentagon?
I asked five times which part of AA77 created the 12-foot round punch-out hole in the pentagon third ring.

So, at least you’re not sure. You back off to other evidence to demonstrate your theory. I think this point is mine.

The funny thing is that YOU yourself who is asking the question don't give any proof of what caused the hole. You theory is that a missile hit the Pentagon but you offer absolutely zero proof to backup the claim. I stated it was a hijacked airliner and offered enough proof to fill a dump truck. And you think you made a point?

Where was Dick Cheney at 9:25 on 9/11/2001?

You completely dodged this one, and again you got back to the bigger picture for self-defense.
Rest assured as this is my smoking gun of the inside job, I’ll cover it in detail in my last post, tomorrow evening, italian time.

Again, I dodged nothing. You have an uncanny ability of making things up as you go along! I was not with Dick Cheney and cannot say for certainty where he was at every minute. And unless you offer us documents or eyewitnesses testifying that they have knowledge of an inside job, you not only don't have a smoking gun, you once again have absolutely nothing.

No, you’re wrong, they reach ground simultaneously. At least according to the NIST section you quoted:

Maybe you'll not so sure, now.

No, I'm not wrong. I provided proof of the core structure NOT falling simultaneously and you somehow keep failing to acknowledge that. And you're right, I'm not just "sure", I'm 100% positive of what happened.

I promised evidence of “Molten Steel, found at the basement of the three buildings, as much as 40 days after the collapse”, as EVIDENCE of temperatures even greater than burning jetfuel, which even NIST concedes, burned out in 6-10 minutes. You can believe that furniture, computers, carpets can burn hotter than jetfuel kerosene. I don’t.

This is a weak link and I told you that earlier in the debate. Read this page:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Simply put, you again have no evidence of anything other than in fact there was molten steel. I never stated there wasn't. I simply stated it wasn't from a bomb and that you couldn't prove that it was. If you have the smoking gun of proof of bombs at the WTC, now is the time to offer them.

Otherwise, I'm afraid you laid out one hell of a great conspiracy theory based on no facts whatsoever.

And yes, I haven't went into great detail as we have progressed responding to your points. But quite frankly, I'm not going to spend a great amount of time responding to theories that have no factual evidence to back them up. I'll let my original facts and investigations stand up to your lack of proof at this point. I believe in order for you to win a debate proclaiming that "9/11 was an inside job" you would have to actually offer proof to maintain your position, not just theories and "what if's".

Sertes

10-11-2007, 06:19 PM

It’s a fact that no bomb was found at WTC complex. In fact out of the thousands of people involved in the recovery effort, not a single piece of evidence of bomb making material was recovered. So as a matter of fact no direct evidence of explosives or cutting charges has been produced over 6 years.

Are we left with only one option? Of course not. In fact as some theory might sound outrageous, the governative version is the worst of them all. In the opinion of 192 real life architects and structural engineers, all listed with name, surname, and degree, the “collapse” of the three high-rise buildings that fell on 9/11 has more than ten elements in common with controlled demolitions while showing no point in common with gravitational collapse. No one can deny that the collapses showed a triple effect of proceeding at free-fall speed, through the path of most restistance, so the columns gave way almost istantly, with still enough energy to completely pulverize all contenets including all concrete. The towers were destroyed down to the single elements that composed them. And no one can deny that after 40 days there were still pools of molten steel under the basement of all the three buildings, officialists only try to lower this finding, which has multiple corroborations, and paint it as useless. Satellite thermal images show that 5 days after the collapses there were temperatures in the rubble higher than the jetfuel burning. What can cause them? No one can deny that explosives and cutting charges could be placed in months before the strike by working inside the elevator shafts with the complicity of some part of the WTC complex security. And no one can deny that something really strange occurred in the weeked before 9/11: for 26 continous hours the electricity was cut off in the upper half of the south tower, to provide “some exceptional works to the building”, and these squads worked so carelessy that the building was dirty, there was a lot of concrete dust everywhere in the upper half of the south tower.
Would you question a worker squad escorted by your own security team? Of course no one would.
All three official studies spend a lot of words to explain the hits, to provide models for the fires in the tower, but as James Quintiere, former head of Nist fire department, efficently put it: “In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”. The collapse of a 47 stories steel framed skyscraper it’s not mentioned even in the FEMA report. That’s pretty strange, because no other steel framed high-rise building ever fell from fires alone ever in history before nor after 9/11.
And the closest steel-framed buildings that fell from fires are a theater and an exhibition hall.
Mr Sunder from NIST claims evidence emerged for the building being damaged by a gaping hole, 25% of the building size. But they can only produce a photo that amounts it to 7,4% of a side.
And the “raging inferno” we keep hearing about is still left that way – hearsay.

When we look to UA93 we have in fact many phone calls that the receiver assure us are authentic. That’s not in discussion here, the source of the calls is in discussion. Bodies of the dead were supplied to the medical facility for identification, it’s a fact we have positive identification, but where they came from is still a matter of faith. They were not identified at UA93 location, they cannot be seen in the photos. Pieces of the plane, who allegedly hit a field in one piece, are found scattered in an area many miles across.

As for the pentagon, no video clearly showing AA77 hitting the pentagon has been released among the 85 confiscated that morning by the FBI. Even debunker websites show a embarassing “nothing” where the plane should be clearly visible.
It’s a fact that many, many people saw a 757. But’s also a fact that someone saw a smaller plane, a commuter plane, a 12-seater. And when we move closer to the face of the pentagon we see that there’s only one hole large enough to accommodate the fuselage or the two engines, and that’s at the middle of the damaged area. On the left of that , there’s no mark of the left engine. On the right of that, there’s no mark of the right engine. On the top of that, there’s no mark of the rear tail wing, which officialists claim was destroyed in an inpact so hard that it disintegrated but so soft it didn’t dislodge even one window. And the lawn is intact, so it’s a fact the plane didn’t go down either.
Inside the pentagon, after a forest of hundred of columns we find a single punch out hole, as big as the single punch in hole: 12 foot. Some claim the landing gear pole caused it. Some claim a landing gear wheel caused it. A shockwave from a military-grade explosives could cause it. And it would be consistent with the single punch-out hole and the other missing damage, too.

Last and most important we have the issue of the missed intervention. It’s a fact that even after the second hit on the towers, when it was clear to everyone that america was under attack, AA77 was able to fly undisturbed for 20 full minutes to Washington D.C., straight toward and in blatant defiance of the most defended airspace in the world.
The 9/11 Commission Report tells us that the plane was lost, they didn’t see it coming, Dick Cheney arrived in the bunker just moments before the hit on the pentagon. Too bad the access computer of the white house bunker broke down: it could have provided the entering time of Dick Cheney. Why it’s so important?
Because minister of transportation Norman Mineta testimonied under oath before the 9/11 commission that when he arrived the vice president was already there. Mineta testimonied also he phoned Monty Berger, No. 2 at FAA, which gave live information to him and to others where the plane was, and where it was heading. Some young men also told the vice president personally that the plane was 50 miles out. Then he came back to say the plane was 30 miles out. And when he came back to say the plane was 10 miles out he also dared ask the vice president “do the order still stands?” to which the vice president snapped back “of course the order still stands, have you heard something to the contrary?”
It’s suspicious to say the least that –this part- of Mineta testimony was left out of 9/11 Commission Report.
Was he talking of UA93 rather than AA77? Of course not, as the quotes from mineta second interview are:

Some young man came in and said to the Vice President, "There's a plane 50 miles out coming towards D.C." So I said to Monty Belger, who is the No. 2 at FAA, I said, "Monty, what do you have on radar on this plane coming in?" He said, "Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "It's somewhere beyond Great Falls right now." Then, the young man came in and said it's 20 miles away. I'd say, "Well, Monty, where is this plane in relationship to the ground?" On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, "Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport," and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon."

This is a Google map made by me highlighting all those landmarks:
http://i18.tinypic.com/6c5i2c2.jpg
Green: great falls park.
Upper yellow: Rosslyn
Lower yellow: National Airport
Red: the pentagon

A detail of the area between Rosslyn and the National Airport:
http://i14.tinypic.com/2rc49s0.jpg

Keep in mind that at Langley, 105 miles away, Brad Derrig and Dean Eckmann got the order to scramble and will effectively be airborne at 9:30. A F16 flies at 1500mph, even at half speed they could intercept the incoming flight.

It didn’t happen

jimnyc

10-11-2007, 06:39 PM

This is a recap of the debate offered by my opponent, Sertes. His original assertion was that 9/11 was an inside job. Let's take a peek at what he offered us to backup this "conspiracy theory":

Foreknowledge by internal (the Able Danger case) and foreign secret services

I have given evidence that the 9/11 Commission looked into this and found and that the "claims didn't stand up". I have also given additional proof that the official military report stated "the evidence did not support the assertions"

The collapse of the three WTC highrise buildings

My opponent states that 190+ real life architects and structural engineers claim that the buildings fell as a result of demolition (explosives) and that it could be proven.

These "experts" are direct from a 9/11 conspiracy website. Why would an expert in the field rush to an internet website instead of a true authority if they felt they had direct evidence?

Furthermore, I've provided extensive evidence to explain what happened to the buildings that day, why they fell, and why they fell in the manner they did. My opponent has offered no proof at all other than a theory.

The missed intervention

My opponent claims that flight 77 was this missed intervention as a result of a "stand down" order. Of course he offers no proof to justify this statement. Here's some more reading to show actual facts instead of theories:

http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

AA77 and the damage at the Pentagon

My opponent claims it was a missile of some sort that hit the Pentagon rather than an airliner. He has given us absolutely no proof at all of a missile hitting the building. I have given evidence of airplane parts, official reports of how a Boeing jet caused the damage, official reports of the bodies, official reports of the black box being found on the scene & many eyewitness accounts seeing an airplane.

UA93, the fake phone calls and the missing wreckage

Sertes claims that the phone calls made by the passengers of flight 93 were fake and/or made from a place other than the hijacked airplanes. We have direct testimony of one of the calls entered at the trial of one of the 9/11 defendants. We also have loved ones telling us there stories of the calls they received from passengers that day explaining they were on a plane that was hijacked. I've also given professional accounts of how these calls were very possible by cell experts. My opponent has offered no proof other than a theory to support this claim.

My opponent further proclaims missing wreckage at the crash scene of flight 93. First off, there was plenty of wreckage found at the scene and I provided documentation to prove this. I further added proof from investigators explaining what likely happened when an airliner nosedived into a field at 500+ mph.

Even former head of NIST fire department James Quintiere recently asked for a peer review of NIST work

Sertes tried to make more out of his words than were actually there. Quintiere simply wanted additional information/explanation as to how and why buildings fell that day. Quintiere never stated anything about bombs, or anything at all to support an "inside job". He simply wanted further investigation.

and there was no elevator going all the way to the floor except for the “express elevator” highlighted by the green arrow

My opponent claimed there was only one elevator in the WTC that went all the way from the top to the ground level. I have provided proof of about 20 elevators that went the length of the building AND official reports showing that some in fact did free fall to the basement level.

Scott Forbes and the power down of the WTC

My opponent claimed the WTC had an unprecedented power down the weekend before 9/11 and that all security was down as a result and all doors open. This is when he claimed a lot of the demolition equipment was installed. Further review I provided about Scott Forbes account showed that he really only knew about the floor HE was working on, and that power was actually only out from above the 48th floor, and he had no knowledge of WTC1 at all. My opponent has also offered no proof at all that security was down as a result or that any doors were left open.

The elevator doors blew open and the windows broken in the lobby were due to explosions in the basement

Sertes states that the elevator doors being blown open in the lobby and the windows being blown out were as a result of an explosion in the basement. He has offered no proof at all other than that of words from a janitor. He initially stated the janitor heard loud explosions. I later offered proof and direct testimony of the janitor himself shortly after 9/11 that what he actually heard was a loud rumble, and his story changed the further we got away from 9/11. Let's also consider that this janitor is now involved in a lawsuit seeking monetary gain from that day. So he wouldn't have anything to gain from his change in testimony, would he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez#RICO_lawsuit

Quite the opposite! The hijacked one is the only one on radar without its name tag attached to the dot!

My opponent contends that even though the transponders were turned off on the hijacked airliners that they should still have been easily tracked. I have already offered a direct rebuttal to this but allow me to add more:

http://www.911myths.com/html/primary_radar.html

As to whether it was Flight 77 that hit their or not” we cannot trust one single testimony that contradics all other photographic evidences

Once again my opponent implies it was something other than an airliner that hit the pentagon but offers no proof at all to backup his assertion. Furthermore, he mentions "one single testimony", while the fact is there were MANY eyewitnesses and a bunch of official reports stating otherwise.

The passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site. -That is part of the false flag inside job conspiracy, coverup.

I stated that remains from passengers and crew were recovered at the pentagon. My opponent's claim is that they weren't and that they were in fact killed elsewhere and shipped to the medical facility for identification. Again, no proof whatsoever provided, but I offered a ton of proof confirming an airliner hit the pentagon, reports of bodies on the scene, and official reports of bodies being sent for identification and their subsequent positive identifications.

Moreover, the black boxes for American Airlines flight 77 -- the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder -- were found at the Pentagon crash site. -Found, or placed?

I stated that the voice recorder and flight data recorder were both recovered at the pentagon crash scene. My opponent claims they were "placed" there. We have no proof to support his conspiracy theory but tons of proof that a hijacked airliner crashed there where the devices were recovered.

But answer me on this issue you skipped: Why the FBI didn’t release a single video from the 85 confiscated where AA77 can be clearly seen, closing the issue once for all?
They first said such videos might be used as proof on the Mousaui trial, but NOW? Now they simply deny FOIA requests.

Sertes claims that FOIA requests are denied for the hidden cameras surrounding the area of the pentagon. I have offered a link showing quite a few of these "missing" tapes, all brought forth as a result of FOIA requests.

See what Robert Hordon, a professional flight controller and member of Pilots for 9/11 truth, has to say about the call he made for American 11 and United 175

Robert Hordon made no such call. This is a widespread outright lie on many conspiracy websites. Robert Hordon retired as an air traffic controller in 1981.

Where was Rumsfeld on 9/11? He was on the pentagon lawn just after alleged hit by AA77, directing the removal of the pieces of evidence.

My opponent has given no evidence that Rumsfeld had evidence removed. In one of his own provided links it clearly explained why Rumsfeld was outside at the time, due to mandatory evacuations as a result of the crash.

Like I debated the calls from UA93, they routed the call from the area where the passengers were held to the area the AA77 drone was flying. Difficult to prove unless someone comes out, but not difficult to make.
The bodies of AA77 and those of UA93 were sent to the same military medical facility.

Once again my opponent claims the calls from flight 77 and/or 93 were made from other than the airliners and once again offers zero proof. I won't tire the board with the evidence yet again of how they were in fact made by the very passengers on the hijacked planes. He also again asserts his claims that the bodies weren't recovered from the scenes but shipped to the medical facility from elsewhere, another claim given with no proof whatsoever.

A small plane or a cruise missile hit it

Despite overwhelming proof to the contrary, my opponent still claims a missile or small plane hit the pentagon. Notice he never, not once, offered any proof of any kind to backup this assertion.

A drone of some sort, a flying machine such as a Global Hawk or a Cruise Missile, all we know for sure it that it was painted as an american airlines flight, it had only one small rotor, could fit in a 12 foot hole, it could produce an explosive shockwave capable of making a 12 foot hole straight ahead

Again with the missiles or drones but nothing in the line of evidence and nothing more than a conspiracy. I've provided much evidence that a Boeing jet crashed at the scene and expert testimony to back it up from the official investigators.

How much gold there was stored under the Twin Towers and how much gold was recovered from the rubble?

My opponent believes there was a lot of gold stored under the WTC towers, was recovered and possibly stolen in the aftermath. No proof at all has been given to show any gold at all remains missing and not a single person, company or entity claiming anything missing.

As you recall, my opponent requested this specific debate and said he would support the claim that 9/11 was an inside job. He has not supported this claim. He has not supported any of his claims. I have not saw on piece of credible or direct evidence provided by my opponent. Every last thing he has posted is based on conspiracy theories and "what if".

One would think if you are going to accuse the largest free country in the world of perpetrating the worst disaster ever on it's own soil that you would have something clear to backup such an outlandish claim. As an American citizen I am insulted at these claims and lack of proof. As someone who was in NYC that day and saw the effects of the aftermath, I am insulted. As an opponent in this debate I am insulted. The readers of this debate should feel insulted for being subjected to such claims without any proof offered. But we are believers in freedom of speech and allow not only our fellow citizens to speak their mind but also others from around the world. I have entertained the claims of my opponent and gave the most in-depth and direct proof I could while placing his argument in the conspiracy theory category, filed under "F" for failure to provide evidence to backup his claims.

9/11 was a terrible tragedy for the entire United States. It's become clear from the investigations that America as a whole could have done much more to prevent such attacks. Mistakes were made an our country paid an extremely large sum for these mistakes. We are all working harder to ensure an attack of this magnitude can never happen again. 9/11 is a day that terrorists attacked America and caught us asleep at the wheel. There is clear, convincing and irrefutable evidence of these attacks by terrorists. My opponent has offered us nothing to believe otherwise.