Willie Nelson: Twin Towers were Imploded

Rheingold, by...

Another moron for the list.

Are you adding yourself to the list of people that don't believe in those silly laws of physics, but do believe that nonsensical fairy tale about Osama Bin Laden and his 40 Thieves???

The security company for the WTC site was Securacom renamed Stratesec, Bush's brother Marvin, in yet another business venture where the company went belly up and the Bush family got richer. They also did the security at Dulles Airport and for United Airlines.

Oooh what are the odds? What happened to those was Dubbya's Bonesman brother, William Donaldson went to the SEC where he was overseeing the bankruptcy. Can we say home cooking yet? Read the Common Dreams article that ties Wirt Walker and Marvin Bush to the Kuwait Airlines and Riggs Bank, unofficial money laundering bank of the CIA.

Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.

But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators. Walker declined to answer the same question regarding KuwAm, referring to the public record.

Walker is also chairman and CEO of Aviation General, a Tulsa, Okla.-based aviation company with two subsidiaries. SEC filings also show al Sabah as a principal and shareholder in Aviation General, which was recently delisted by the Nasdaq. Stratesec was delisted by the American Stock Exchange in October 2002.

The suite in which Marvin Bush was annually re-elected, according to public records, is located in the Watergate in space leased to the Saudi government. The company now holds shareholder meetings in space leased by the Kuwaiti government there. The White House has not responded to various requests for comment.

Speaking of the Watergate, Riggs National Bank, where Saudi Princess Al-Faisal had her ``Saudi money trail" bank account, has as one of its executives Jonathan Bush, an uncle of the president. The public has not learned whether Riggs - which services 95 percent of Washington's foreign embassies - will be turning over records relating to Saudi finance.

Meanwhile, Bush has nominated William H. Donaldson to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Donaldson, a longtime Bush family friend, was a Yale classmate of Jonathan Bush.

On the very day of the tragic space shuttle crash, the government appointed an independent investigative panel, and rightly so. Why didn't it do the same on Sept. 12, 2001?

Riggs National Bank

Hint...No connect....:-)

Except for fun, I did have an account there when I worked in DC..

Damn you're smart and well informed Pamela. What a pleasure it is sharing the vine with you.

Hopefully the truth will emerge. There is 0% probability that the official account is anything like the truth.

The ramifications are terrifying.

Well thank you TBone. The way it looks to me is that America either confronts the corrupt element that has taken the hold in the Congress and grown through the covert operations, the banking and the foods and exposes the truth, holds them accountable and restores honor and justice to the country or we will find ourselves continuing on a path of destruction for Democracy, human health and the environment. Too much of what's wrong with the world ties to very few who have had the power to hide their crimes and the media platform to ignore the truth. I'm banking on a new revolution rooted in cyberspace and driven by dreamers!

Tedd, we won't hold it against you if you're a Riggs customer not a Riggs heir! :~)

Instead of becoming angry at citizens who question government, get angry at the fact that it is now COMMON, VERIFIED KNOWLEDGE that the FBI knew about the first WTC attack in 1993, and even let it happen. (Just googe WTC, 1993, "John Anticev" transcript).

Once someone knows that fact, it becomes impossible to NOT question.

The bush admisitration lied to attack iraq what makes you think they did not lie about 911?

And perhaps it's been let out to see the light of day with the perpetrators knowing full well that anyone espousing that particular theory is going to be jeered back into the Stone Age.

If it was an inside job,that means that Bush and Friends are smart enough to plan and execute the work as well as keep it completely under wraps.

If the public has been manipulated by it's leaders in the past, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which btw is historically accurate that the country was manipulated into the Vietnam War, then why is it so hard to fathom the possibility that we were also manipulated into the War on Terrorism? If you look who the benefactors are of an incident, often you will find the master mind also.

It is easy to keep information under wraps when you control the flow of information, especially when you pass legislation to protect yourself from inquiry or disciplinary action.

Maybe it is bigger than Bush and Cheney?

@Epictetus. I think you are right, it is bigger than Bush and Cheney. It's wheels within wheels, and they're just cogs.

I'll take exception to Bush as a cog, he seems more like someone you'd wanna keep as far away from the event as possible so he doesn't muck it up...

Which is kind of what happened....

Maybe Bush had nothing to do with it. Those pictures of his face after somebody or other whispered in his ear what had happened look more like a deer caught in some headlights than anything else.

It's not possible that those three buildings came down like they did because of those two airplanes. You don't have to have any technical degrees to come to that conclusion. It's real, real easy to research for anyone who can read at about a ninth grade level. But saying that isn't the same thing as saying our government was responsible for it. It's not drawing any conclusions at all about who was responsible. It's just stating the obvious, along the lines of the kid on the parade route that pointed out that the emperor was naked.

What I don't get is how crazed people get when someone does state the obvious. That's what I don't get.

What I don't get is how crazed people get when someone does state the obvious. That's what I don't get.

Most likely from the first 20-30 times they watched the news feeds over and over again, those images were forever engrained in many people's head and when a explanation (right or wrong) came along to explain all the terror people had from that day, a natural tendency is to assign that feeling with the images. Its a natural way of letting go for many. Some can face it again and look at other options and other possibilities for the collapse, others just cannot go there.

I disagree with the image of Bush as deer in the headlights. Scared maybe, that it was actually coming off, nervous perhaps but his response was DEFINITELY not that of a president of a country that was, ostensibly, under direct attack. If this were the first he had heard of it, there is absolutely no question in my mind that he would have been whisked off to a safe-bunker someplace. In fact, it is that first look of George, reading the goat story to the kids, that made me know in my heart that we were being deceived. When have you EVER seen George reading goat stories to kids prior or since?

The second anomaly was the symmetry of the towers and the pyroclastic dust. The third was the obvious fact that the pentagon had not been hit by a plane as the damage was simply incompatible with that story.

Do you know anything about physics, TBone? If so, what do you know?

Scott, do you feel that only physicists can come to sound conclusions about this?

I know enough that the explanation of the collapse of WTC7 doesn't even begin to pass the laugh test.

No, but I think if he's going to scoff at the official explanation that he should have at least a rudimentary understanding of physics.

I think a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology would have helped those who said that the Pentagon jet evaporated with the amazingly intense heat (from jet fuel!) yet the DNA of the victims was intact!!!

They were smart enough for the invasion of iraq to go through. just because there's a chimp in th ewhite house does not make his party members stupid. the neo cons have planned "the new pearl harbour" for an increase in military spremacy(PNAC) way back when the democrats were in the whitehouse.was in office and when they got in all there birthdays came all at once.

The republican party was hijacked by the neo-cons, do you know what neo-conservatism is and what they stand for?

If everyone knew what neo conservatism is they would not even be allowed near the white house ever

IMO, both parties have been hijacked.

I agree with you there phree

Actually, they don't. Once a building that tall is far enough out of plumb that columns fail, it will pretty much just fall straight down. On one of the buildings the collapse was slightly asymmetric due to the aircraft impacting on the corner, but all that happened there is that the top portion leaned over and then fell straight down in a slightly tilted position.

phree:
Let me put it simply for you: what happens when you take the keystone out of an arch?

phree:

Nothing, not buildings, not steel columns, not an apple falling off a tree, falls into the path of MOST resistance.

No, they fall in the direction that force is applied (i.e. downward, due to gravity). More or less resistance has nothing to do with it, only whether there was enough resistance.

@ batmanchester:

Half of your images are photography tricks as can easily be deduced by either a) looking at the skewed cars in the foreground or b) reading the comments. Of the ones that are real, all of them involve concrete structures under 10 stories that suffered foundation failure. Notice that in 4.2, I referred to "a building that tall." A 100 story steel building cannot fall over like a tree. It is physically impossible.

The controlled demolition theory is just plain wrong. I challenge you to find me one technical paper arguing for demolition that is written by a structural engineer. I've never seen one.

batmanchester, try reading this bit Once a building that tall. Comparing the Twin Towers to buildings fractions of their size is trivial at best. Besides, the Twin Towers were not demolished by earth quakes, while many of the other photographs you should have obvious image affects added to them.

falls into the path of MOST resistance.

I'm sorry, but objects do not anticipate the path that they will travel. If I drop an apple onto a ledge it's going to hit the ledge, regardless of how "less resistant" the clear path next to the ledge is.

Need I remind you of Newton's first law of motion:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

The external force in this case being gravity, acting upon the tower in a straight downward direction.

I think you are confusing motion with electricity with your talk of path of least resistance.

you mean like MIT engineer Jeff King?

Who is Jeff King?

Wikipedia doesn't know, and neither does Google except for his connections to 9/11 theories. Has the man done any reputable work outside of the realm of 9/11?

Jeff King is an electrical engineer who has been working for most of his life as a doctor. I'm looking for a structural engineer.

There are plenty of engineers, physicists and demo experts that insist this was a controlled demolition. You haven't seen anything because you haven't decided to look.

Actually, I have looked. I find conspiracy theories very interesting and I own a copy of Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon, which I read cover-to-cover. There are some engineers who have supported the demolition theory but I have never seen technical arguments for this theory made by a structural engineer. In other words, the one profession most qualified to weigh in on this theory unanimously rejects it.

The guys that designed the Trade Centers.

Notice how they cut off his comments right before he points out that the impacting airliners were traveling faster than the speed they assumed. Also, keep in mind that the WTC design was criticized by the Empire State Building's designer prior to construction. The ESB's engineer thought the WTC would not withstand airliner impacts, but the WTC designers won the argument.

The WTC designers used an overly simplistic analysis that took columns out on one side of the building but only on one floor. They failed to account for damage occurring at multiple levels.

Buildings fall straight down, so building demolition is a racquet, a farce, we don't need no stinkin controlled demolition cause all buildings fall straight down. All that money for controlled demolition to take out the center supports first so that a building implodes and falls into it's same footprint is a big waste of money! All buildings just fall straight down even though the center supports are designed to hold the building up, or in the case of the WTC's, were designed to withstand impacts such as those that brought them down anyway.

Or in the case of WTC 7, just light a couple of fires in a building and it will also just fall into it's own footprint, even better!

Imagine the tax dollars we could save.

If your read your own link, you will see that it specifically states: "The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down."

Buildings fall straight down, so building demolition is a racquet, a farce, we don't need no stinkin controlled demolition cause all buildings fall straight down.

The purpose of controlled demolition is to limit the size of the debris area. Implosions are done to prevent damage to adjacent structures. This isn't because tall buildings can fall over like a tree, it's because some of the debris will be thrown outwards and hit nearby structures. The WTC tower collapses were anything but controlled, debris was scattered over an area several times larger than the building footprint and a great deal of debris impacted nearby structures, one of which (WTC7) collapsed and others had to be demolished afterwards.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Or in the case of ALL THREE WTC TOWERS, it just happens by chance, so again, we don't need no stinkin demolition experts.

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier cleanup following the blast.

But wait a minute, the aircraft hit the upper portions of the WTCs 1 and 2, and nothing impacted WTC 7... strange coincidence i suppose. Gravity is to blame, gravity gave me the flu last week also.

Or in the case of ALL THREE WTC TOWERS, it just happens by chance, so again, we don't need no stinkin demolition experts.

I repeat: The WTC tower collapses were anything but controlled; debris was scattered over an area several times larger than the building footprint and a great deal of debris impacted nearby structures, one of which (WTC7) collapsed and others had to be demolished afterwards.

In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building,

Just because breaking the lower floors is sufficient to cause a collapse doesn't mean it is the only way to do it.

Gravity is to blame, gravity gave me the flu last week also.

I wonder why it is that so many demolition proponents are snide, snarky and confident of their position when not a single one of them is an expert in the relevant field. If you're really interested in the truth, it might help to be a little more open to evidence that conflicts with your world view.

If you're really interested in the truth, it might help to be a little more open to evidence that conflicts with your world view.

The pot calling the kettle black?

The pot calling the kettle black?

Nope. I've read the arguments for controlled demolition and have found them inadequate. These arguments conflict with my knowledge and experience as a structural engineer. I also see no one from my profession making a contrary argument. My conclusion is reasonable and more than fair to proponents of the theory.

Just like Willie, I am questioning this.
The collapse was too controlled.

Here's a list of structural engineers who question the official account;

Actually that appears to be a list of engineers, they are not all structural engineers.

As I asked previously, where are the peer-reviewed reports from these structural and demolition engineers showing that the building could not have collapsed without the use of controlled demolitions?

I repeat: The WTC tower collapses were anything but controlled; debris was scattered over an area several times larger than the building footprint

It was pulverized dust and some lingers here to this day. A nice solution to the asbestos problems they were facing but a problem if you tell the workers the air is clear and they start dying because it collapsed to dust?.

Hell, there were human remains all over lower Manhatten. They found DNA in manhole covers blocks away. If this was a controlled demolition, the demolition man should be corralled and shot.

If I go through the trouble of finding anything for you...what will you ask for next?

I believe you or someone said show me ONE structural engineer...now your asking for peer reviewed papers?

What is next?

I know what is next...you will attack the author of those papers! Claim he's a nut...right?

Here's Dr.Steven Jones' peer reviewed paper "Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse completely"

I would probably ask you for nothing more, as the report should contain enough material to either convince me or keep me busy for many months to come.

I'm not calling anyone a nut, I'm just looking for unbiased, peer-review information from relevant experts. Either it exists, or it does not.

Steven Jones is a particle physicist, not a structural engineer or demolitions expert, and his paper has never even been published by an independent journal.

I've read the arguments for controlled demolition and have found them inadequate.

I've read the debunker's arguments and quite frankly, it doesn't take a degree to study any given discipline, whether it be structural engineering or dentistry and get enough of an understanding of said discipline to know when things do not look right, so based on what I have read in conjunction with structural engineering, how buildings are designed, built and then demolished, none of the WTC destruction characteristics hold water, in particular WTC 7.

Finger points back to you Entelechy.

phree:
Here's an interesting notion: humans are debris. In a controlled demolition, the spread of debris is confined to close to the building's "footprint." If they found human remains all over lower Manhatten, that indicates that it wasn't a controlled demolition.

So why would Bin Laden and Zawahiri take credit for the attacks? And where are all those people on the planes? Why did they identify remains of some from the planes? Do you honestly think a conspiracy could be so expansive as to make a few hundred people disappear?

What I'm pointing out is the debris dispersal indicates it was uncontrolled. I suppose it's possible, but not probable, that they loaded it with a massive amount of explosives. It was terrible, but it wasn't a massive explosion. The towers fell in a fashion controlled only by gravity and influenced by fires within them. No explosives except the cruise missile the terrorists turned the planes into.

phree:
I refer you to 4.6, friend. Can you answer that? It will start to answer the WTC towers if you can.

To clarify, phree, I asked for a technical paper written by a structural engineer (see post 4.7), not a name on a list somewhere.

Besides, your list is misleading, containing a large number of people who are not structural engineers.

What I'm looking for is a knowledgeable argument from someone who knows what they're talking about.

I've read the debunker's arguments and quite frankly, it doesn't take a degree to study any given discipline

Yes, but you would think that if you actually understood the discipline to any degree, than at least one of the thousands of people employed in that discipline would have written a detailed argument in favor of your position. Otherwise, the more reasonable conclusion is that you, in fact, don't understand the discipline in question.

So why would Bin Laden and Zawahiri take credit for the attacks?

Actually, Bin Laden denied any ties to the 911 attacks:

September 16, 2001
Osama bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks in a statement to Al Jazeera television, saying, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."

Who the hell translated this? I watched the tape where Bin Laden took credit for the attack. Apparently they missed that?

They who? The Bush Administration?

Here's another source...

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th. Source - Full transcript of bin Laden's speech

I see. So then what about those fatwas issued by Bin Laden saying that killing Americans is a legitimate jihadist activity? Are you really going to argue that Bin Laden is credible after taking both sides of the issue?

Who are you talking to?

Odd for a terrorist mastermind to initially deny involvement, but not so surprising to generally reference the attacks without actually stating he or his group called for or planned the attacks in a statement years later.

Epictetus:

But he then added, "If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists."

Source

Notice Bin Laden's caveat. He's not saying he didn't participate: he's saying he doesn't consider it terrorism.

See comments 4.40 and 4.43, he did deny involvement in the specific attacks on 911.

That's all fine and good but he's clearly saying something different there. So is that a separate interview from the one that you found? If so, when was he telling the truth? When he said it wasn't terrorism to kill those that kill your sons or when he said he wasn't involved?

We'll probably learn the truth in 40 or so years when what documents the current Administration hasn't destroyed become declassified. If we are still alive, one of us can say "I told you so" and a new generation can debate their current power base's corruption and use the zeitgeist of now as fuel for their debates..

I won't deny... I'd like to see some declassified documents. LOL

So you're defending a murderer now? LOL Can you even tell me where the image on the left came from? The right is the Bin Laden the world knows... the one with a withering kidney disease.

Hey phree, how about taking a shot at 4.6?

You decide to abandon this part of the thread, phree?

What happens when you take the keystone out of the arch, phree?

Yeah, murderers that didn't cop to the crime. Difference is, your guy did. And if you think I'm a fan of Bush you're extremely mistaken. Just look at my column here.

What happens when you take the keystone out of the arch?

The middle falls straight down, falling down the path of LEAST resistance. If you don't get it yet, it falls straight down because there's nothing in the way.

Last time I checked, the WTC's were skyscrapers, not arches, and I don't have to be a structural engineer to figure that out.

Eyes:
Welcome to the world of physics. Stand an arch on its side and you're looking at a skyscraper's distribution of weight. Taking out one of the floors is like removing the keystone: it falls down and goes boom.

Go ahead and take on some of my other comments. You know, the ones you've been ignoring pal? Kind of like you ignored the arch thing until someone answered it.

If you turn an arch on it's side, like a C, it would still be an arch...on it's side, and wouldn't stand up at all, so removing the keystone wouldn't do anything.

Taking out one of the floors is like removing the keystone: it falls down and goes boom.

Buildings don't go boom unless you blow them up.

phree:
Try following your own comments by looking for the beige and then move down and look for replies. That's how I've been keeping track.

Eyes:
So tons of debris falling down doesn't make a sound? Is that like the tree in the woods? An arch falls apart when you take the keystone out. It's the same support structure as the WTCTs. The floors at that level are all structurally interdependent. You take out down the others crush it accelerating the fall.

What the heck, exactly, is the point of this arch metaphor anyway?

Jerking the keystone in an arch has the same effect as obliterating a weight-bearing floor with 50 and 30 floors above it.

Would have to be a pretty 'even' obliteration of the floor to be anything like that.

You doubt a 757 is able to gut a floor?

Yes. It hit the corner. Most of the explosion was outside.

If the floor were thusly keystone-arch obliterated by the airplanes, why the lag time before collapse?

Also, which floor(s) of WTC7 were also thusly keystone-arch obliterated?

The lag time was allowing for time for it to burn. To the best of my knowledge it isn't going to be wiped out without a fire.

As I said, WTC7 was constructed differently. It just had to have parts of the WTCTs fall on it.

So why destroy WTC7? What would that motive be?

A 757 weighs 485 tons... that is not light and certainly not lighter than air. Do you know the properties of aeronautics that make heavier than air flight possible?

And how do heavy floors blow my theory away? It reinforces my argument that the weight collapsed the superstructure.

Questioning the motive for WTC7 is an excellent suggestion. First place, I'd think to look, is insurance payouts, I'd consider other liabilities that would be resolved, such as asbestos contamination. Since WTC7 housed some intelligence and command centers, perhaps there was some damaging evidence that was neatly disposed off. Motive and opportunity. Who had both?

Boeing 757 - aluminum - total weight 485 tons or 485,000 kg

Molten aluminum + water, drywall, or concrete makes thermite.

You think half a kiloton of thermite couldn't bring down a building?

phree:
Peter has a point. That does create thermite. It would accommodate your claim of thermite and mine that the plane caused it to collapse.

Thermate is just thermite plus sulfur. Plenty of sulfur in gypsum.

As for placing it throughout the building, 485 tons of exploding liquid thermite can get a lot of places ...

The exact weight of the airplane? What a coincidence.

I'm talking about the airplane. Airplanes are made of aluminum, remember? Aluminum melts at a relatively low temperature due to the fires - don't care about the fireball - and mixes up with all kinds of shredded drywall, concrete chunks, water and office supplies. A magnesium pen tip or briefcase somewhere in that hot soup of thermite ingredients flares and triggers a thermite reaction that in the blink of an eye spreads throughout the whole mess. Temperature soars to a couple thousand degrees and resulting explosions squirt the whole thing every which way. The result is what you see on the videos.

sheep ...

Here's the Newsvine Code Of Honor. I'm happy - delighted in fact - for you to argue with my opinions. But there's no reason for us to violate the standards of the community here by going ad hominem.

And I'm really curious about why you don't care for this theory. A thermite reaction with the plane's metal itself would account for the near freefall speed, the symmetry, the witnesses, and so on. A conspiracy certainly could have thought of using this effect to bring the buildings down. So ... what's your problem?

phree:
How much aluminum is on a plane? A whole hell of a lot. That's how much. Furthermore, all the evidence of a Boeing at the Pentagon wasn't destroyed. There were plenty of aircraft engine parts in there.

Here's pictures of three engine pieces.

I have explained umpteen times how the debris went into the Pentagon.

Whatever, phree. What about the pictures? You going to claim those aren't jet engine parts?

They are parts from a jet engine. A 30 year veteran of General Electric's Aeronautics division says so. Who should I trust? A man that's been building them for three decades or you?

And don't show me the picture of the little turbine (or whatever it is) that was already debunked by Rolls Royce's CEO...remember.

No, the Rolls Royce CEO never debunked anything.

THOSE ARE NOT THE PARTS FROM A ROLLS ROYCE ENGINE! Says the guys from Rolls Royce.

Who? John W. Brown, who said It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy? Well, I would imagine that he would not be familiar with it, since he is a spokesman not an engineer; and he worked at for Allison Engine in Indianapolis, a subsidiary of Rolls-Royce. The Rolls Royce RB211 engines that those pictures are of, are made at Rolls Royce in Derby, England.

You really need to get your facts straights phree.

Have you seen the CGVLAB at Purdue University's simulation of the plane crashes?

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

Look and learn.

And Allison Transmission became a subsidiary of Rolls-Royce just recently in 1995. When was the engine in question built again? I suspect that John W. Brown wouldn't pass the 'expert' test in a court of law...

BUT, the question is, will Phree admit that this 'debunking' has been debunked or will he continue to use it again and again, hoping that people won't question it...

Rhinehold:
The latter... I've seen him do it far too many times. LOL He's pumped up on his self-image as a noble crusader against an evil government, a chivalrous knight. He's also high on the adoration that other Truthers give him as the High Priest of 9-11. He would prefer not to give that up.

Nor should he have to. In sum, I'd say his theories are far less deluded. It seems that the official story has to be so cockamamie to be true, the explanations are such reaches of logic, that, while there might be a few facts that will go either way, in the aggregate I still conclude there is more than enough anomalies to warrant a new investigation.

WT1? Maybe? WT2? Huh? WT7? WTF?

Out of frustration. I feel for him and all of us man.

Scott, I am sick of your personal @!$%#. I didn't censor you once.....until now. Because you are NOT debating the facts, you are getting personal. I warned you fairly. You Daddy's opinion does NOT qualify.

phree,

Your above comment is disingenuous and hypocritical. For the most part, Scott's tone has been respectful to you despite your continued attempts to make it personal and insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you.

You have set a tone of insult and personal attacks in this column, before anyone else did. You above comment implying that Scott is a child, and parroting his Daddy's opinion is just the continuation of this.

If you want to start deleting messages, you are best served starting with your own.

Many people have speculated on what exactly that part is. Like you suggest, if it were from a Boeing 757-200, then it should be a RB211-535 turbofan.

There are multiple engine types that can be on 757-200s. Including various Pratt & Whitney engines. Therefore, there's no reason why a Rolls Royce spokesman would necessarily know *anything* about them. Boeing Tech Page

Stick to the debate Roan. This article is not about me. Last time.

Then follow your own advice phree. I did not make the comments regarding Scott's Daddy's opinion, you did.

How can I be off topic if I respond to your comments?

I'm pointing out why you're censoring me. It's clear that I must have won or you wouldn't keep deleting my posts. Like I said: my dad has spent 30 years building the same type of jet engines as the RB211 is. You've spent two years by your own admission studying evidence. If you want to put that up against someone that has produced and assembled turbojet engines for three decades. You do that, it's a discussion you'll lose in laughing fashion.

No Scott. I've read every post. Phree continues to dominate with facts.

Wow, a conspiracy theorist agreeing with another conspiracy theorist. Never seen that before.

Wow.... 542 responses and still going.....

Phree,

Why don't you take off your tin foil hat and move on with your life...

The official story of what happened on 9/11 is now chiseled in stone

Your crazy theories cannot deface the monolith of truth.

;-)

So Scott claims his pop is an expert. Therefore, it is NOT off topic for me to suggest that the hearsay of his Daddy's opinion hardly qualifies as evidence.

I did not say it was off topic. The tone you used in dismissing his father's opinion was a borderline personal attack and obviously intended to be insulting. You Daddy's opinion does NOT qualify.

But you, Roan, whining about ME talking about so-called, yet un-proven expert Dad, is PERSONAL @!$%#. It is NOT adding to the debate.

I'm was not whining and claiming that I am is obviously meant to be insulting and an personal attack. Scott's father is as much of an expert as anyone whose opinion you have presented as evidence, so you cannot dismiss him just because you don't want to believe what he has to say.

So why don't we start over and obey all the rules like the good little sheep that WE are? We don't want to upset the other COH whiners. (They might re-program the Therm-inator to target US.)

Good little sheep? Whiners? That is not what I would consider starting over.

Scott I hereby declare that you cannot use this continuing non-sense about your Dad being an expert, and constantly trying to use this UNKNOWN (to us) person's personal opinion, unless you prove it ALL somehow. It's hearsay to say the least.

Sorry, but you do not have the ability to decide who can be presented as evidence.

You seem concerned with "winning" something. A debate with me I guess?

Thank you for your deep insight into my motivations. However, as usual, you are 100% wrong.

phree:
If you're going to insist all evidence that contradicts your theory was planted, there's no point in arguing with you. Your answer will just be "They planted it."

I could show you my dad's Department of Defense recommendation as the best inspector the DoD overseer has seen, but you'd just say I produced it or the DoD is part of the conspiracy. So there's really no point in voir dire on my father because you outright reject anything that disagrees with your conspiracies.

BTW, did you notice that Newsvine's staff replaced my comments after you deleted them? I didn't even complain. They picked up on your heavy-handed tactics all on their own.

My experts are PROVEN real people, they are intelligent men. Doctors, Scientists, Physicists, Politicians

They are only people. They're entitled to make mistakes

And here we encounter the fallacy of appeal to authority. Even if someone is an expert in a field (such as structural engineering or aircraft engine part identification), they can still make mistakes. Therefore, we must rely on our own experiences and logic to determine the truth, without the mediation between us and the truth by Important People (tm).

Not going to bother claiming you'd treat my dad with respect after I gave you proof? Well, at least you're getting closer to telling the truth.

I was talking about the Newsvine staff - NOT the experts.

Please pay attention, and you would not make such embarrassing mistakes.

I know what you said.

I was pointing out the inherent inconsistency in your remarks. Newsvine staff can make mistakes, but so-called experts cannot. Look up the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority" - you'll find it true that authorities are not always correct.

If you believe that an expert cannot be wrong, you have an inherent logical problem. Just because someone has an advanced degree does not make them infallible in any way. An ulterior motive (among other things) can cause an expert to say something that isn't true. Does this work both ways? Yes.

I'm saying neither one (your "experts" or Scott's father) are necessarily right.

I just said that we are dismissing the opinions of any alleged expert. Scott's real dad, your bull@!$%# dad, and other "experts" in fields tangential to structural engineering.

That's the first plausible explanation I've heard.

One of the reasons I like the "experts" for the truth is that they do take their specialties and apply it to the problem.

The reasons the pilots for the truth exploded in membership is the fact that the 'black box' shows the aircraft at not correcting it's altimeter at 180 and was, in reality, at least 400 above the pentagon at the moment of impact. Further the rate of descent made it impossible to correlate with the level trajectory shown in the one video that we do have.

Keep up the excellent work Phree.

If you believe that an expert cannot be wrong, you have an inherent logical problem. Just because someone has an advanced degree does not make them infallible in any way. An ulterior motive (among other things) can cause an expert to say something that isn't true. Does this work both ways? Yes.

Exactly. Which is why we have the peer-review system.

Subject matter experts are not infallible, which is why they have their work peer-reviewed.

None of phree's sources of information are even subject matter experts in the relevant fields, and they have not published any peer-reviewed technical papers. All they have is a web of facts and lies they have weaved into a conspiracy theory. It does not stand up to the scientific method, and as such holds no weight.

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?"

Mr. Kilsheimer is a structural engineer with 39 year experience, and is routinely used as an expert witness.

Summary of Kilsheimer Lies.

A fireman is NOT and expert, on the fires in the WTC?

No, a fireman is trained to extinguish fires.

A pilot is NOT an expert, when it comes to questions about maneuverability of a Boeing?

Not necessarily, unless he is a test pilot.

Engineers are NOT experts when it come to discussion about the integrity of the structures?

Not unless they are structural engineers.

Intelligence agents are NOT experts when it comes to questioning prior knowledge?

Never heard of an intelligence agent before, is that something you just made-up?

...and they have not published any peer-reviewed technical papers.

Thats TWO LIES in one sentence!

That's a lie? Really? So you can point me to an independently published, peer-reviewed study that disputes the official NIST report? If you are unable to, then you are the one who is lying, phree.

Where is you scientific method? Where are your published, peer-reviewed studies? If this is so easy to prove, to understand; then why haven't any of you so-called experts produced a single technical paper since 2001?

You can claim wrong all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

I am not wasting anymore time talking to someone who lies TWICE in one sentence, and then calls me a liar for no reason.

I did neither. I said, If you are unable to, then you are the one who is lying, phree.

Provide the peer-reviewed studies and prove me wrong.

Where is you scientific method? Where are your published, peer-reviewed studies? If this is so easy to prove, to understand; then why haven't any of you so-called experts produced a single technical paper since 2001?

Where are they, phree?

You can't just say that he's wrong. You've gotta prove why he's wrong.

Be careful Roan and INH... if you start making too much sense he'll delete your post. He's rather intolerant of disagreement with him.

Provide the peer-reviewed studies and prove me wrong.

Where is you scientific method? Where are your published, peer-reviewed studies? If this is so easy to prove, to understand; then why haven't any of you so-called experts produced a single technical paper since 2001?

Where are they, phree?

Phree, in your opinion, is it scientific for a research to look for evidence to support a foregone conclusion?

Doesn't matter - regardless of your opinion, it isn't scientific. The scientific method requires that evidence be gathered first, and then a conclusion taken from the evidence. The journal to which you link has as its mission to prove a certain point. Therefore, since it is seeking evidence to support its foregone conclusion, it is not a legitimate scientific journal.

phree:
Firefighters are experts until they predict that the WTCTs and WTC7 are going to collapse from the fires that were gutting them. At that point, they become unqualified or part of the conspiracy... all because they have the temerity to disagree with a noble citizen journalist just trying to spread the truth. (and collect a little coin in the process, BTW. Newsvine pays pretty good for controversial stories that draw legions of pageviews. You're probably laughing your way to the bank at the people that actually believe you.)

Same goes for pilots that disagree with you, aircraft engine builders like my father that disagree with you and structural engineers that disagree with you. Disagree with phree? He'll tell you that you're stupid or blind. Disagree with him a second time? He'll grapple with you trying to demonstrate a show of force to wow his readers. Disagree a third time and he'll ignore you or, if your reply is sufficiently embarassing to him, he'll delete it.

Oh yes, I forgot. He'll also accuse you of being a traitor to your country and a paid propagandist at some point while trying to decide whether you are blind, stupid or on Bush's payroll. That phree, he's a gem alright. A regular mudraker in the mold of Upton Sinclair.

But that's exactly what FEMA, NIST, the 9/11 Commission and those yellow journaist "Popular Mechanics" have all done.

Did they set out to disprove a particularly theory? Or to examine the evidence and make a conclusion based on that evidence? I'll give you PM as going in with a foregone conclusion, but the others examined the evidence with an eye towards divining the truth, not proving something they already believed.

So there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers on 9/11.

No there are not. Unless you consider the term peer-reviewed to only apply to being reviewed by people who agree with your already fore drawn conclusions. Peer-review only applies when your paper is reviewed independently and published in an independent journal.

Only one of the papers you link to above qualifies. Did you even read it? It concluded that the fire that resulted from the collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 was what ultimately caused the collapse of WTC7. In other words, phree, the only peer-reviewed paper which used a scientific method that you have, does not support your conspiracy theories.

Do you have any more peer-reviewed studies for us that disprove your conspiracy theories?

Seriously, are you guys all the same person or something? You all have the exact same impairment.

The same impairment being a good helping of common sense, most likely...

HTH

Since you didn't read any of them (except you one that you say doesn't support the truth-which one was that ?) than how can you really argue with me?

No, actually I had read most of them before, and I did read the others. It is you who did not read them, else you would never have linked to one that refutes your theories.

I asked for peer reviewed papers...and you got them...hundreds...do you think I wrote them all last night to trick you?

No, I got papers that set out to prove a fore-drawn conclusion, that are not peer reviewed, or even published. No scientific method, no peer review, and not published.

If they are truly peer-reviewed papers that employ the scientific method, then why have they never been published in a single technical or scientific journal? Not a single one. Any ideas phree?

Yes you certainly do, in the NIST reports, in the 9/11 Commission report, and in "Poopular mechanics!!!"

Prove that those reports were trying to prove a foregone conclusion. Your 9/11 troofer journal claims on its website to have a specific agenda that it is trying to prove, but the others base their conclusions on the scientific method.

Thousands of pieces of evidence vs. practically zero evidence!

You're exactly right. There's practically zero evidence to support the 9/11 troof movement.

Yes you certainly do, in the NIST reports, in the 9/11 Commission report, and in "Poopular mechanics!!!"

First, the article in Popular Mechanics is a magazine article and not a study; and second, the NIST report did not set out to prove a fore-drawn conclusion.

Another red herring. Admit you received what you asked me to find for you, otherwise don't bother to expect me to find a link or links for you again.

No, I never received what I asked for. Would you like me to explain what peer-reviewed means again?

STOP asking the new things when I provide info, and START addressing the INFO itself.

I have been asking for the same thing since the beginning of this discussion, you have just been unable to provide it.

If I found you a link to a journal you would once again simply say..."that doesn't count". As always.

No, but keep pretending if that makes it easier for you to ignore the request instead of proving me wrong. Come on phree, I am challenging you to prove me wrong.

Why don't you try to explain the near free fall collapse again,and how it defies the laws of physics by falling through the path of most resistance?

I'm not dodging it, it just is not worth responding to as it has never been proven. Prove it first.

Why did WTC 7 collapse completely the way that it did?

The likely answer to that is in one of the links that you provided for me above, the one that disputes your conspiracy theory. Go back and read your links phree.

Why did WTC 7 collapse completely the way that it did?

As I told you above, yhe likely answer to that is in one of the links that you provided for me above, the one that disputes your conspiracy theory. Go back and read your links phree.

If they are truly peer-reviewed papers that employ the scientific method, then why have they never been published in a single technical or scientific journal? Not a single one. Any ideas phree?

defies the laws of physics by falling through the path of most resistance?

Do you even understand the principle (not a law like you claim) you are talking about? The principle states that an object moving through a system will follow the path of least resistance. Moving through a system in not the same as falling.

If I stand on my roof and drop a bowling ball while you are standing directly below, according to your theory the bowling ball will ignore it's momentum and move past your head because the air next to your head has less resistance than you head.

Now if I roll the bowling ball down a mountain, it will indeed following the path of least resistance when measured along the entirety of the journey. What that means, is at times the bowl may not follow the path of least resistance, for example it may briefly roll up-hill.

There phree; your question about the "path of least resistance" that you have asked at least four times has been answered. Will you FINALLY ADMIT that you DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE TO START WITH? Thanking Roan for the explanation isn't required. That's what we're here for: to educate.

SO now you're going to argue that the Laws of Physics, including the Law of Conservation of Energy, and the Law of Conservation Of Momentum...aren't Laws, like the Law of Gravity is, but Laws that don't apply to 9/11.

No, I'm telling you that the principle that you incorrectly called a law does not support your theory. Do you wish to attempt to explain to us how the principle of the path of least resistance supports your theory?

I am still waiting for you to tell me which one you are talking about. I think you may not be telling the truth again.

Read your own links, it would be very obvious then.

The peer reviewed papers are peer reviewed papers, the Laws of Physics are laws that can't be broken, the structural engineers, are structural engineer, and the Mountain of evidence IS in fact EVIDENCE!

Except that you have no peer-reviewed papers. Do you even know how the peer-review process works?

Why don't you try to explain the near free fall collapse again, and how it defies the laws of physics by falling through the path of most resistance?

I see you are still using this same line that makes no sense. Do I need to explain the principle regarding the path of least resistance to you again, phree?

Why did WTC 7 collapse completely the way that it did?

The answer is in your links. I had the courtesy to read them, I suggest that you do the same.

You still haven't answered the following question:

If they are truly peer-reviewed papers that employ the scientific method, then why have they never been published in a single technical or scientific journal? Not a single one. Any ideas phree?

I DID NOT make up those names! The Laws of Physics - are called laws because they are principles THAT CANNOT BE BROKEN.. I DID NOT MAKE THEM...got it?

I never said you did, I said I'm telling you that the principle that you incorrectly called a law does not support your theory, in response to your following quote: defies the laws of physics by falling through the path of most resistance?

Falling through the path of most resistance does not defy the laws of physics as you are attempting to claim. In fact, you admitted so with your bowling ball and Styrofoam analogy. Got it?

A BLATANT LIE. Again.

No it is not. Where are your peer-reviewed papers? Just calling all the articles of a few sites peer-reviewed does not makes them so. Going through the peer-review process does. If they were peer-reviewed like you are attempting to claim them please provide us with who the referees were.

You read HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed papers in the last two days? BS!

Perhaps you missed my comment where I said, No, actually I had read most of them before, and I did read the others.

I'm NOT Answering ANYTHING you have to ask, until you answer my questions.

No, you are not answering my questions because you are unable to, but stick to your excuse if it makes you feel better.

YOU CANNOT DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS--and you can't simply just try to say they aren't laws, which is implying that they can be broken.

I never said either.

Why don't you try to explain the near free fall collapse again, and how it defies the laws of physics by falling through the path of most resistance?

You mean like how your bowling ball falling through the Styrofoam sheets defied the laws of physics? Like that? How about you explain how that defies the laws of physics?

Why did WTC 7 collapse completely the way that it did?

What's the matter phree, you are not even prepared to properly review you own evidence? The answer to your questions lies in the links you provided. For someone who claims to be so smart and so interested in the truth, I am surprised that you have not found it yet. Maybe you don't want to?

Who were the referees that reviewed the articles you claim are peer-reviewed, and why have none of them ever been published in any technical or scientific journal?

Let me remind you of the concept of burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim (that would be you, phree). That means that you need to prove your claims, I do not need to disprove them.

I think you mean "You lose the debate." phree.

I was referring to when you typed "You loose the debate." I would never attempt to tell you that you lost the debate because it would send you on an endless tangent... I want you to save your energy for the 9-11 article I'm in the process of writing.

I have the first part done. I'm not sure how many more myths I'm going to tackle. I'm planning on stopping when it starts to look a little long in the tooth and then plan for Part 2.

There is no disproving laws, phree... there is proving that you misapplied them.

Would you please refrain from calling me son? You are the same age as me, at best. Likely younger.

I thought Chuck Norris kicked the building down ? I'm confused....

That could be, Tedd. You may be onto something here. Norris is closely aligned with Huckabee, a right wing Baptist, who therefore has an interest in demonizing Islam.

But, darnit, the whole nefarious plot has been unraveled by Willie Nelson.

An axe kick is Chuck Norris' "controlled demolition." ;-)

What physicist? Alex Jones?

Can you explain to me how we both can watch a tower get hit by an airliner, burn for quite a while and then collapse and I'm the retarded one?

Apparently you didn't understand the construction of the WTC towers in the first place, nor did you understand the fires that burned after the crashes. They were structurally flexible at that height because they had to be to sway back and forth with the prevailing winds. If they didn't shift around the wind would gust and tear the building down. Are you actually saying you don't understand the girders melting to the point of collapse or you just reject it even though it is scientific fact? A building constructed in the way the WTC towers were would fall precisely like that when you apply the forces that were applied to it that day.

No. Professor Steven Jones, among others.

The particle physicist?

Where are the peer-reviewed reports from these structural and demolition engineers showing that the building could not have collapsed without the use of controlled demolitions. Does it exists?

Willie Nelson and Charlie Sheen's opinions carry no more weight than yours or mine. In fact the argument could be made, that they should carry less weight.

Technically, the top of the building disintegrated from the forces applied to it. It didn't really explode, as it were. As for rivets, why don't I nail some boards together and then light them on fire? A connector is not much good when what it is connecting is disappearing because of fire, heat or other forces acting on them.

As for the center girders, do you know what happens in an extremely hot fire? Lots of stuff that looks odd outside but when you understand how it works from the inside makes sense. Think of flashover... you can't see the fire spreading in the room, the fire simply burns so hot that it spontaneously combusts the oxygen present in the air and moves across the entire room in a flash. That's just one example of the dynamics of a fire.

Brenda

Wow. I had no idea Willie Nelson is a structural engineer. Or a materials engineer.

You kiddin' me, Brenda? I attended one of Willie's big 4th of July parties in Luckenbach back in the '70s and I saw plenty of implosions that day. 'Course, most of 'em were due to too much weed and Jack Black.

Now I think I'll fly off this thread before the microwaves can penetrate my hat.

Hmmm....

I better make sure to consult him as I build my new house.

Maybe you shouldn't consult Popular Mechanics either, cause according to them, the first time you got your over warmed up to 450 degrees, it's gonna collapse on itself....

'Course, most of 'em were due to too much weed and Jack Black.

Ahh... to be young again... ; )

Bill, Willie was indeed a structural engineer... You ever try to build a bong for a whole band?

Bill, Willie was indeed a structural engineer.

Heck that would take also a mechanical and a chemical engineer. That guy really was a genius ! :-)

The Popular Mechanics article wasn't done by a regular either, it was the nephew of the head of Homeland Security. How's that for objective?

Nephew or cousins? Which is it? If you go far enough back in anyone's family tree, you will find that we are all related.

There is zero evidence that they are related, unless you consider his mother telling Christopher Bollyn that they might be distant cousins as evidence of collusion and conspiracy.

Futhermore, Ben Chertoff was neither a debunker or even the author of the Popular Mechanics article, he was a one of many researchers that worked on the story.

I don't hear bells, I hear the grasping of straws.

batmanchester:
I don't think you understood what I said properly. I can rivet steel together with titanium and start melting it... the titanium will survive the fire, the steel will not, the connectors will be useless because what they're connecting ceases to exist in its original form.

I'll tell you what doesn't fit... letting the towers burn so long before detonating them. If all that time wasn't the fire weakening the steel girders, what was it? Furthermore, when you consider the tremendous weight on top of these steel girders it would lower the temperature needed to compromise it. Pressure causes heat and accelerates collapse. The more weight I stack on those things, the more likely they are to collapse during a fire... the level where they are compromised becomes much lower than normal. I doubt they melted the steel with weight on it to see when it failed... they just heated it until it melted and recorded the melting point.

batmanchester:
That's precisely what I'm saying: it didn't have to melt the steel. It only had to weaken it enough for the weight of the 20+ floors above it to do the work. Once one floor was gone it was like dominoes.

How about that guy on the street, a supposed Joe Blow, who, immediately after the first tower fell, told the t.v. crew on live television that it was obvious that the flames burned so hot from the jet fuel, that they caused the girders to collapse? That was so transparently a set up interview, the crew should have been fired.
But even were we to consider the impossible theory that the steel melted, that doesn't come close to explaining away all of the other evidence of at the very very least, criminal negligence on the part of the government, nor their rush to cover up everything afterward.

How many times to do we anti-truthers have to explain this? The steel doesn't have to melt (i.e. liquify) it just has to weaken so much that it can no longer support the weight above it, and give in.

It's well established that at the temperature at which jet fuel burns, steel loses as much as 50% of its strength.

Think of it this way, batmanchester. Let's say I have a three hundred pound man sit on a wooden kitchen chair and then I start whittling the legs of the chair with a hatchet. Am I going to have to totally destroy them or just cut enough out so they'll snap under his weight?

Roan...5.20...There is zero evidence that they are related, unless you consider his mother telling Christopher Bollyn that they might be distant cousins as evidence of collusion and conspiracy.

Do you check your facts or just make claims that support a gut feel? This isn't even a hard one to verify.

Here's the best I can do on short notice, finding a source that's up to snuff for a skeptic. Popular Mechanics itself has it first in the comments section, published by PM without correction or notations. The writer complains about Chertoff's cousin investigating the Katrina response for PM. Homeland Security for the CYA crowd that's for sure. Don't nit pick this as short of declarative, to find mainstream folks that report this stuff is like finding most truthful but unflattering facts in the mainstream and it's not worth that much time.

Do you check your facts or just make claims that support a gut feel? This isn't even a hard one to verify.

Here's the best I can do on short notice, finding a source that's up to snuff for a skeptic. Popular Mechanics itself has it first in the comments section, published by PM without correction or notations. The writer complains about Chertoff's cousin investigating the Katrina response for PM. Homeland Security for the CYA crowd that's for sure. Don't nit pick this as short of declarative, to find mainstream folks that report this stuff is like finding most truthful but unflattering facts in the mainstream and it's not worth that much time.

Pamela, I could ask you the very same question considering that you initially cliamed that Ben Chertoff is Michael Chertoff's nephew.

An anonymous comment on a Popular Mechanics blog is not what I would consider verifiable source of factual information.

That is like someone using your comment #5.18 as evidence that Ben Chertoff is Michael Chertoff's nephew.

If it is not hard to verify, then please prove me wrong and verify it. I have no problem being corrected.

I guess the fact that you share the same surname with Prof. Mike Drew, must mean that you are a close relative of his?

Is PM staffer Benjamin Chertoff a cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security?

As we explain in our book, it appears that they could be distant relatives. The connection, if any exists, dates back to the 19th century, before either family immigrated to the U.S. They have never met, and never spoken to one another. Michael Chertoff has never spoken with any member of the Popular Mechanics staff, nor with any member of Benjamin Chertoff's family.

The speculation concerning the supposed Chertoff connection is a good example of how conspiracy theorists often latch on to shreds of information, but get the details wrong. Ben Chertoff ran PM's research and fact-checking department at the time of the original magazine article, and conducted some reporting for the story. He was not the "senior editor," "head writer," or any of the other incorrect titles lofted by theorists. (Ben was later promoted to online editor, and recently left the magazine to pursue work as a freelance writer and producer.)

Moreover, Michael Chertoff was not secretary of Homeland Security at the time PM researched the original story. He was sworn in on Feb. 15, 2005, more than a month after the piece went to the printers.

Conspiracy theorists often present the supposed connection between Benjamin and Michael Chertoff as ipso facto proof of some sort of collaboration. But why would that be? There are nearly 30 people on the editorial staff of PM. Virtually none of them knew each other—or Ben—before coming to work here. So far, no one has explained to us how they believe a relatively junior magazine staffer could convince dozens of his colleagues to become complicit in a cover-up of one of the worst attacks in U.S. history.Source: Popular Mechanics Investigates 9/11 Myths: FAQs

We never actually thought to doubt this claim, simply believing it irrelevant. The piece needs to be judged on its contents, not the surname of one of those involved. But then we heard a suggestion that Benjamin Chertoff denied the story altogether, so decided to email him to hear what he had to say. Was he really related to Michael Chertoff? And if he wasn't, then how could he explain the quote from his mother?

This is what he had to say. Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only "Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins." Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" I said, "I guess so," -- that's not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story.
Chertoff paints a very different picture from the original story. Some will say he's lying, of course, but in that case it shouldn't be too difficult to prove: go to it. And in the meantime, this acts as a useful reminder to everyone, including us: don't take any 9/11-related claims for granted, whether they come from someone on your "side" of the argument or not.Source: 911 Myths: Benjamin Chertoff

"Ted Bundy was a kind human being. He was loving and compassionate. He could never harm a flee much less another person."

Source: Theodore Bundy Fan-Club

2. If the Steel didn't melt (as we both agree) then what were the pools of molten metal that were under ground zero for weeks as evidence by numerous eyewitnesses, and satellite thermal imagery

Presumably there was other metal in the trade centers that could have melted.

3. What happened to the 4 inch thick steel columns? If the floors fell because the trusses were weakened...then the HUGE steel columns should have been the ONLY thing remaining.

The columns would have been heated to a large degree as well. Probably enough for them to weaken enough that, when tens of floors full of stuff fell on them, they bent over.

Either the steel melted or it didn't. If it only weakened enough to collapse three buildings in the same day, even though it never happened before or since

How many buildings, "before or since," have been hit my half-full-or-more airliners? None. Therefore, that statement is irrelevant.

Wouldn't the heat from the fire have caused any explosives present for such an "implosion" to go off rather quickly? I don't think it would have lasted as long as it did if it were wired for demolition. Also, at what temperature does jet fuel burn?

Is that YOUR guess or somebody else's?

Mine. Are you willing to contradict it, however? There was no metal inside the building besides the steel beams holding up the tower?

While I cannot prove that proposition false, it fails the 'common sense' test.

Is that YOUR guess or somebody else's?

Mine, sorta. It's well known, from someone else's "guess" that steel becomes 50% weaker at 800 *C, and that jet fuel burns at 980 *C. It fails the 'common sense' test that the WTC would be built with steel able to hold twice what it would normally hold for an extended period of time. Therefore, my conclusion is logical.

Is that YOUR WRONG assumption or somebody else's?

When else have airliners hit a building similar in design to the WTC?

We truthers like to deal with facts..not guesses.

Like 70 foot tall airplanes? That's not even a conclusion based on logic. That's just plain false.

Do you check your facts or just make claims that support a gut feel? This isn't even a hard one to verify.

Any update here, Pamela?

phree:

1. The FIRST Official story was that the beams melted, then they changed their minds because the TRUTHERS debunked them.

We've found mistake after mistake in the sources you cited. Our side isn't allowed to have one mistaken educated guess early on?

2. If the Steel didn't melt (as we both agree) then what were the pools of molten metal that were under ground zero for weeks as evidence by numerous eyewitnesses, and satellite thermal imagery

Are you familiar with a compost heap? The chemical reactions within it cause tremendous heat. Your own complaints that rescue workers have been dying from inhaling what was left of the WTC towers speaks to the fact there were a number of volatile chemicals. What do you suppose happens when you mix these chemicals under tons of debris?

3. What happened to the 4 inch thick steel columns? If the floors fell because the trusses were weakened...then the HUGE steel columns should have been the ONLY thing remaining.

Uh, did you not see the facades that were left of the WTCTs? That was part of its support structure sticking up.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE to think that every truss, every column, every BOLT and fastener all decided to give way at the same time!

If that was the case, it would have fallen straight down and contained the debris dispersal radius. It didn't, so that didn't happen.

Uhh, the figures you just said meant nothing for a start.

Also, you aren't taking into account your figures aren't on target because you aren't subtracting the length of the pieces that would shear off in the Pentagon crash.

Any update here, Pamela? #5.38 - Thu Feb 7, 2008 12:41 PM EST

I'm here Roan, some of us have other things to tend to beside following the threads. Yes, I'll give you this one, my error, live and learn. Try to remember I am always honest and fair if the facts show I'm mistaken.

However Benjamin Chertoff's Mother, when asked about a possible relation, she said they "might be distant cousins.

Sorry for that Pamela, it was uncalled for.

Nah it's fine, though it's sweet of you to say sorry. I get pretty snarky myself at times and throw some decent shots it should in fairness swing back my way occasionally. As long as we can make up after sparring we're good. :~)

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1130 °C. Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1492 °C (2720 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1539 °C (2802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1130 °C (2066 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1315 °C (2400 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.

From Wikipedia. As the first line says, the lowest temperature that steel can "begin to melt", or "weaken", is 1130 degrees celcius. Wanna know what the highest possible temperature jetfuel can possibly reach is?

Open air burning temperatures: 260 - 315 C (500 - 599 F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 C (1796 F)

Hey, look! Facts!

Were you aware that pressure creates heat? Like the pressure of twenty floors pushing down on the steel in question?

Eyes, according to the NIST,

When bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.

The steel doesn't have to begin to melt. It has to weaken.

phree:

Now, if the steel didn't melt...then what created the pools of molten metal under the three buildings, that just happen to contain all the ingredients of Thermate (the PATENTED form of thermite - used specifically as an incendiary cutting charge for demolitions) ???? Hmmmmmmmmmm....

Sure I can answer the molten metal. The chemicals accelerated the heat once the towers collapsed. Gypsum, rust, benzine and some other things including 90K liters of JP4... makes for a nice, hot slurry.

Furthermore, where's a documented source on this thermate and what chemicals were present afterwards that you claim weren't contained within the towers already?

(BTW- an organization that is highly suspect as being complicit)

Exactly my point from elsewhere. When evidence is provided that refutes your claims, the validity of the evidence's source is called into question as complicit. As such, you make it impossible to refute your claims of conspiracy because the limits of that conspiracy are not fixed.

Furthermore, where's a documented source on this thermate and what chemicals were present afterwards that you claim weren't contained within the towers already?

I'll second that request. Your sources have already been found to be factually inaccurate regarding the size of the plane, which justifies increased scrutiny on similar claims.

From Wikipedia. As the first line says, the lowest temperature that steel can "begin to melt", or "weaken", is 1130 degrees celcius.

Eyes, looks like your reading something into this that isn't there. The article says "begin to melt." You added (falsely) the word "weaken." Steel will weaken well below the point it starts to melt. Blacksmiths formed horseshoes and tools from steel heated to well below the melting point. It's damn near impossible to make a horseshoe if the metal melts into a molten puddle. The only way to make one is to weaken the steel enough that it may be easily formed into the shape you want, or... weakened into a malleable state. If you want to experiment, put a steel coat hanger on your stove burner till it gets as red as the burner element (use gloves). Once it's cherry red, you can easily form it into any shape you want. Notice however, that at no time did the metal melt.

Ok, my bad. I guess I'm the only one getting smarter. I still have a point though.

When bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.

Open air burning temperatures: 260 - 315 C

Looks to me like you're still a few hundred degrees short, even accounting for the pressure. Not only that, but those bars had many inches of fireproof coating:

In order for a fireproofing product to qualify for a certification listing of structural steel, through a fire test, the critical temperature is set by the national standard, which governs the test. In Japan, this is below 400°C. In China, Europe and North America, it is set at ca. 540°C

That fire wouldn't have even breached the coating. That stuff doesn't just fall off (but obviously a plane hitting the building does create a bit of force), and even if it did, the bars wouldn't just disappear. They would bend, because they were weakened, and seeing as you can't bend straight down, the building still would have fallen sideways, off of the building, and over 70 floors would probably still be standing.

Those buildings were designed to take a similar-sized plane crash, and those engineers don't suck at their jobs that bad.

The heat protection was plaster... plaster cracks when you ram it with an airliner.

It would explain the compromise of the heat protection.

phree:
If you remember, I said I was going to tackle as many "911 Truth" myths as I could... are you aware of the sheer volume of theories you guys put out?

I take it you want me to tailor the story to the ones you find credible? You'll need to list those because as I believe the official story I can't guess as to where you deviate.

The fires were not hot enough to melt steel, only weaken it

Right. So weakened steel, with more weight placed on it than normal, might do what? Fall? Yeah.

Larry Silverstein admitted on television that WTC 7 was pulled

And "pulled" means? It's not a foregone conclusion that he would have meant "pulled" like "blow it up." He may have meant pulled in some other way.

All videotapes showing the Pentagon were confiscated, and never released to the public (except for the 5 frames that show nothing that was released 4 or 5 years later)

Does the government normally release security camera footage? No. Why would they do any different now?

Dick Cheney ordered fighter jets NOT to attack a plane headed for the Pentagon (from Norm Mineta's--who was in the white house bunker with Cheney on 9/11--9/11 Commission testimony (which was excluded from the final report)

So Dick Cheney's a pussy who didn't want to shoot down a plane with civilians on it. Did he make the right choice? No. Is his choice perfectly understandable in the context of the government story? Yes.

There were multiple military war games going on that very day, that included fake radar blips (which was their excuse for air traffic controllers confusion)

I'm sure that there are war games going on just about all the time, no matter what. Do you think our military spends most of their time sitting on their asses on base playing bridge?

The hole in the Pentagon was approximately 16-18ft wide (prior to the collapse of the facade)

There was little debris, no skid marks, and no signs of a Boeing at the Pentagon (prior to the FBI showing up)

Why should there be debris on the outside of the Pentagon? All the soon-to-be-debris had significant velocity towards the building until the plane hit the building. There's no reason for the debris to be strewn on the lawn on the areas the plane flew over before it blew up.

Yes fall, maybe. But only the portion with the weakened steel. The top of the building should have fallen over (as it was about too, before it disintegrated into a cloud of dust!) The rest of the building was still in good condition...no fires...no impact holes...no broken columns.

Fallen over? After the plane hit, and started a fire with its fuel, what force would there be to impart horizontal acceleration on the top part of the tower? It's possible that the top would have just fallen down.

"Pulled" is a well known demolition term, it means they blow the interior columns slightly before blowing the exterior columns. The weight of the falling debris "pulls" the exterior structure inwards,so the building falls in on itself.

Prove that, please. From a website about controlled demolition, not 9/11. My google search for "pull demolition" came up with either unrelated uses of the word "pull" or 9/11 "truth" bull@!$%#.

Why is it any different now? ummmm...because MILLIONS of people are asking how come we haven't seen a plane hit the Pentagon yet...which is part of the greatest crime ever committed on US soil. duhhh

It's the government. Its intransigence is legendary. Besides, tens, if not hundreds, of people saw the plane hit the Pentagon. A lack of photographic evidence that an airplane hit the Pentagon proves nothing, especially when taken with the number of eyewitnesses who saw an airplane.

Is he a pussy or a hero or criminal? After all he (supposedly) didn't know where that plane was headed...maybe he was willing to "take a bullet" for the people by letting the plane crash into the White house??

Occam's Razor. Do we assume the presence of a conspiracy? Or do we assume that Dick Cheney acted like a normal person would when scared? We'll assume the fewest number of things -- that is, no conspiracy, just Dick Cheney behaving as anyone would in that situation.

Not just regular war games my friend. Many games (7 I believe?) that left the US basically unprotected...and that involved fake blips on REAL radars..look it up

The whole point of war games, at least some of them, is to test the capabilities of the equipment and crews manning that equipment. It would be utterly useless to run war games not using real radar. Likewise, you also have to use the resources you have, including generals etc.

The US depends on its intelligence. Since the intelligence hadn't passed on any threats that were taken account of pertaining to "enemies from within," it was thought to be safe.

O.k...for one, many pilots believe it was an impossible maneuver...a downward spiral at 500 km(?) an hour, flying a few meters off the ground (without hitting some objects--cable spools, trailer...and apparently hitting object that weren't even in it's path--see the light poles) and smashing perfectly into a part of the building that was emptied for recent renovations.

Not to mention a 150 foot wide x 70 ft tall plane disappearing into a 16 ft hole without leaving a wing, engine, tail fin, luggage, seats, bodies, paper ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOLE! Look it up ..their are plenty of pictures of the Pentagon online.

Who knows? When you have a high-speed collision, weird things happen, I guess. There's really no proof contrary to the eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Not to mention a 150 foot wide x 70 ft tall plane disappearing into a 16 ft hole without leaving a wing, engine, tail fin, luggage, seats, bodies, paper ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOLE! Look it up ..their are plenty of pictures of the Pentagon online.

If the plane did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it, and more importantly where are all the passengers?

Not to mention a 150 foot wide x 70 ft tall plane disappearing into a 16 ft hole without leaving a wing, engine, tail fin, luggage, seats, bodies, paper ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOLE! Look it up ..their are plenty of pictures of the Pentagon online.

And guess what? It's your favorite time of the day... It's evidence time!

The Boeing 757 is not 150 feet wide and 70 feet tall. Its body width is 12.33 ft, and if you include the wings, 124 ft. Its height is a mere 44 feet, including the tail. Boeing technical specs for the plane

If you'll excuse some speculation, the body of the plane appears to be cylindrical, and therefore, the height of the body, if we disregard the tail, is *roughly* 12.33 ft.

This raises a few questions.

1. Why would whatever source you got your information from lie about the dimensions of the airplane? Contrary evidence is obviously readily available. This misstatement throws many of their other statements into doubt.

2. Why would it not make sense that this plane would make a 16 foot hole? The wings and tail structure of an aircraft aren't meant to withstand a huge amount of force without coming off. Therefore, all we're left with is the cylindrical body which, not coincidentally, has a diameter of a bit less than wait for it 16 ft.

Do you have a conception of how large the military is, phree? 7 war games is not only possible, it's on the small side.

If I cut off one of your legs with a chainsaw, would you;
a) fall straight down into a pile of human goop
or
b) fall towards the side where the injury is?

Last time I checked, neither towers had two legs. That's a completely false analogy, and you know it.

Watch this video.

I would like a source pertaining to demolition not 9/11. If "pull" is such a common term in demolition, this shouldn't be too hard for you.

People also say they saw a small plane. Some people say the plane was on this side...some say that side...some say it was to high and flew right over the Pentagon...some say it was a missile. Absent of evidence of a Boeing matters. If you disagree than I think you're in big trouble.
If I rob a bank and then steal the videotape of me robbing it, does that mean I didn't do it? The FBI confiscated videos that show everything...WHY HAVEN"T WE SEEN THEM? Hmmmm? National Security?

So at the very least, the eyewitness evidence is inconclusive.

Occams razor - Dick Cheney is a douche bag who profits from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He shot his "friend" in the face and then lied about it. He is known on the hill as Darth Cheney (even Hilliary called him that). He lied about being the CFR Chairman while running for office.

You should try APPLYING Occam's razor, instead of ignoring it. Apply it to Cheney, and apply it to the whole Official Conspiracy.

Occam's razor works in OUR favor! A building that falls down and looks, sounds, and falls at the same speed (defying the Laws of Physics) as one that is known to been brought down with explosives...usually is!

State Occam's Razor, in its original form, and how that would apply to the situation at hand. Oh, and also tell me who "Occam" was. (Hint: "Occam" should be "Ockham." Keep that in mind when you google it.)

You tell me to apply Occam's Razor and that it comes out in your favor, but you haven't done so yourself.

Seven (7) on ONE DAY!!!!.......and I guess Osama knew about them?? Why don't you apply Occam's razor here. Did Osama have inside info?

The US military is very large. They need to have things to do. I'm sure that multiple war games occur daily. I'm sure Bin Laden was aware of this, and figured that the US would be unprepared for an internal threat. He was right. No conspiracy needed.

Thats is the kind of blind sheep thinking that is causing your countrymen to be killed in Iraq. There are eyewitness who saw a small commuter jet as well.

Weird thing happen

MY GOD...that is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on any website discussing 9/11 truth! 757's just don't disappear into tiny little holes without leaving a trace!!!!

I addressed that in my comment #6.11. Turns out most of your facts were... dead wrong.

And as for my age? I'm old enough to vote. I'll leave you guessing for the rest.

phree:
You'll notice the rings of the Pentagon didn't have a roof... the WTC towers did. In fact, you can tell the Pentagon has gaps in roofs between rings because the explosion on the security tape blows upwards. That changes the dynamics of the explosion and makes any comparison of what happened after the crashes at the WTC towers and the Pentagon difficult, if not near impossible. It's apples to oranges based on the design of the building.

phree:
He's got a point. A human has two support beams but a building has one: it is a great, big, single-legged structure.

You can argue with 6.13 if you want, phree.

Get the picture now? I said there were gaps in the roof. I didn't say there was no roof at all. This picture clearly shows the gaps between the Pentagon's 5 rings. So, again, why would you think that it would blow upward in the WTC when there was a roof? You're dealing with two totally different structures when you talk about the WTC and Pentagon.

In fact, you can tell the Pentagon has gaps in roofs between rings because the explosion on the security tape blows upwards.

I said it right there. Please don't call me a liar. If you read my entire post you're aware of what I was talking about.

phree, he said the "the rings of the Pentagon didn't have a roof"

If we excise the prepositional -- and therefore unnecessary -- phrase "of the Pentagon," we are left with "the rings didn't have a roof" which is indubitably true. Please, learn some basic English. These rings which are unroofed are called "gaps." While Scott didn't use the word "gaps" he said something which was synonymous.

So the plane is 120 ft wide...not 150...BIG FU**ING deal. You still can't stuff an elephant into a mouse hole!! The damage from the Boeing? that hit the Pentagon is inconsistent with the damage from the towers...by a longshot.

Are the wings of a plane going to be strong enough to break through concrete walls? No. The wings would break off -- they aren't built to cut through anything but air. Now, the plane is 12.33 feet wide, fitting into a 16 foot wide hole. Like fitting a... mouse into a mousehole.

Let's use our "FUNCTIONAL brain" to analyze the situation and see that the official story isn't as far-fetched as you make it out to be.

And trying to tell me that the twin towers don't have legs?? Wow! I can't believe you missed the point...a four year old would have understood perfectly.

Scott defended my statement well. If a structure's only base of support is removed, it will behave entirely differently than a structure with one of two bases of support removed. Do you want me to explain the physics of it? Or can you use some spatial logic to figure it out yourself?

It's a good thing for you that I have a FUNCTIONAL brain

phree, you may want to take a look at the newsvine CoH, particularly items 1 and 2:

1. Above all else, respect others. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it, rather than further inflaming the situation.

Before you write, seed, or comment, ask yourself if your contribution increases the strength and virtue of the community.

I don't think that your constant name calling is respectful, community building or even helping your arguments at all.

Thank you INH. I felt it was pretty clear what I was saying, especially if one is familiar with the construction of the Pentagon.

Furthermore, on the hole, physics dictate that the wings are going to be sheared off as well as the tail fin and travel into the hole with the plane, only to be blown onto the yard after the explosion. So, in essence, phree isn't taking into account the wings are breaking up and going successively into a 16 ft. hole with a 12 and a third foot fuselage. They would shear off backwards and bend in as the skin holds until it makes contact with the wall so that keeps them roughly in line with the direction the fuselage is moving in. This is further backed up by the engine pieces found in the Pentagon that were made out of tougher metals like titanium and, thus, survived the fire.

Furthermore, on the hole, physics dictate that the wings are going to be sheared off as well as the tail fin and travel into the hole with the plane, only to be blown onto the yard after the explosion. So, in essence, phree isn't taking into account the wings are breaking up and going successively into a 16 ft. hole with a 12 and a third foot fuselage. They would shear off backwards and bend in as the skin holds until it makes contact with the wall so that keeps them roughly in line with the direction the fuselage is moving in. This is further backed up by the engine pieces found in the Pentagon that were made out of tougher metals like titanium and, thus, survived the fire.

What I've been trying to say. Exactly.

(FYI - The rings are the structure, the gaps are the space in between the rings!)

Both the building parts and the non-building parts are rings.

1. The wings are strong enough to break through concrete, What happened at the twin towers??? Oh yeah right...DEBUNKED!

The twin towers were largely glass and thin metal on the outside. The Pentagon is concrete on the outside. There is an interval of strength which can break glass but not concrete. It is not unreasonable to assume that the strength of the wings is inside that interval.

Try putting a fist through a pane of glass. It broke, right? Try putting a fist through concrete. Didn't work, right? Same thing with an airplane wing.

2. The planes wingspan is 120 ft wide NOT 12.33.

I know. The width of the body is 12.33 ft. And if we accept that the wings break, as is reasonable per above, the width of the plane is therefore 12.33 ft.

Spatial logic huh. I bet you don't even know what that means.

Excuse me, I used that term incorrectly.

I don't even know where to begin with this. What structure's ONLY base of support was removed?

Either one of the twin towers. If the middle of the tower collapses, because it caught on fire and the supports can no longer support the stuff above, then the top of the tower has no more base of support. Therefore, it would have no reason to fall sideways, as you asserted above.

Why don't you give it a try and see what happens? I will bet anything the chair will tip to the side with the damaged leg...and NOT fully collapse (i.e all legs fall together)

Exactly.

phree:
Any way you cut it, the wings are either going to go through intact or shear off and follow the fuselage. The former if it crashes something weaker, the latter if it crashes something stronger. And do you have any clue how the Pentagon was built? Roosevelt built it extremely sturdy and heavy because he expected it to be holding tons of books as a library after the war. It just so happens our DoD stayed there and then made it a hardened target. Requisition the blueprints for the Pentagon through FOIA and take a look.

BTW, the chair analogy is to show what weight on top of slowing weakening supports will do to the support structure.

phree:
When one says "Pentagon" that means the entire structure, rings and gaps. I said it didn't have a roof because it didn't have a single continuous roof. Can you argue the Pentagon has one single continuous roof? If you can, maybe you can call me a liar.

The wings and tail fin were sheared off, pulled into the Pentagon and then blown to pieces by the explosion.

I'll keep repeating my logic over and over again until you understand how it applies. You keep operating under Wile E. Coyote physics: if a plane crashes through a wall, the hole is shaped like the plane. That's not how it worked. The wings and tail fin are not strong enough to punch their way through a hardened target. They'd be ripped backwards but hold on long enough to follow the fuselage into the Pentagon.

Have the seen the Sandia Lab test where they crash a F-4 into a concrete wall? It pretty much turned into vapor.

While your opinion regarding the plane and the Pentagon is entertaining, it does not carry any weight at all. Where are the all the aeronautical engineers and scientists, proving with science how the damage to the Pentagon could not have been made by a Boeing 757-223?

You're talking to phree and not me, right?

You're talking to phree and not me, right?

Right.

phree,

Can you explain the Sandia Lab test I mentioned above?

phree:

Yes I know, I just think your logic is comparable to a mentally handicapped 6 year old.

I guess you didn't see the two holes left in the Towers after they were hit. Maybe you were to busy watching Bugs Bunny?

Are you aware military and civilian buildings are constructed differently? The latter is weaker than the former.

Would you please stop insulting handicapped people by using them as a reference point to locate my intelligence in your opinion? You can call me any nasty name you want, I don't mind... just leave other people out of it.

Not without knowing anything about it. Do you have more info?

Do you have Google?

I will tell you now, that there is quite a big difference between a Boeing and an F4. Thats like comparing a freight train and a minivan.

You do not appear to have an issue comparing dissimilar things in order to support your theories?

Do you have a link, sir?

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html#rocketsled

phree:

I didn't insult handicapped people, just you.

Now, If I said to a handicap person, "man.. you're as smart as Scott", that would be insulting them.

The fact I refer to them a "handicapped people" should tell you I wasn't insulting them. Many people use derogatory terms to describe them. I don't.

Yeah, you did insult them. Clearly you think I'm unintelligent based on what you've said so when you compared a six year old handicapped to me, you insulted them. What? Are you going to argue you were trying to compliment them?

Maybe you should spend less time calling me names and more time "debunking" what I say... isn't that supposed to be the "Truthers" specialty? Debunking?

BTW, noble citizen journalists that quit their jobs to pursue the truth don't spend their time calling people names.

Your opinion, your opinion. Most of this is your opinion. PROVE ME WRONG AND ADDRESS WHAT I'M SAYING. Or are you at a loss and have decided to kill the messenger because you don't like the message? I am no traitor and I don't "work" for anyone. That's yet another conspiracy theory you conveniently have no evidence for but insist is true based on your feelings. Think about your own logic. If I was working for "them" don't you think I'd have finished my 9-11 article by now since my sole job would be as a propagandist? The last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism... traitor my ass.

Have the seen the Sandia Lab test where they crash a F-4 into a concrete wall? It pretty much turned into vapor.

Those videos weren't working for me, so I'll just have to ask: Was there an enormous hole in the wall where it crashed? Did they put two more walls behind it, and did the plane crash through those also with similar sized holes? Because that's what happened at the pentagon.

No, there was only one thick concrete wall, which suffered very minor damage.

I'm sure those who pointed out the CIAs involvement in overthrowing the Iranian government (Operation Ajax) were called "conspiracy nuts" and those who initially pointed out the misinformation that led us into the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin incident) were also called "conspiracy nuts".

Really though, who are the nuts? Those who recognize and point out discrepancies in perspective and refuse to just accept what they are told by their leadership, or those who blindly accept information because "the authorities said so" even though the historical perspective clearly states things are not always as they seem, especially when those incidents lead to war or involve oil revenue or control?

Just because other conspiracies exist, does not mean that every conspiracy exists or that this particular one is true. You are incorrectly using logical induction.

I'd love for you to elaborate on how using logical deduction to point out how the public has been misled in the past does not lead to the possibility we have been misled again.

BTW- Gulf of Tonkin incident, not conspiracy, fact.
Operation Ajax- not conspiracy, fact.

Also, I would like to point out that the aggressors are not typically the "conspiracy nuts".

With respect to the above point, why is it socially acceptable to label someone with a derogatory reference who thinks there is a possibility we have been misled into the War on Terrorism by means of state sponsored terrorism when it is historically accurate to state we have been led into war in the recent past by state sponsored terrorism and that the evidence to debunk said claim is insufficient to state with 100% accuracy that said claim is in fact not plausible?

It's like hearsay evidence in court. I can't confront my accuser. Just because someone says things that may have made sense in view of past events, that doesn't make it true.

So because a suspect has killed someone before I can pluck any random murder file out of the police files and accuse him of it because he has a history of killing people?

Doesn't make it nuts, or nonplausible either. If the defense in a court case had the ability to cover up and withhold the evidence in a court case, it would make it impossible for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt guilt, but that does not mean the defendant is in fact not guilty of said crime, it just means the defendant gets away with the crime.

does not lead to the possibility we have been misled again.

Oh it allows for the possibility, but it neither proves anything nor really is any kind of evidence on its own.

BTW- Gulf of Tonkin incident, not conspiracy, fact.
Operation Ajax- not conspiracy, fact.

Conspiracy and fact are not mutually exclusive.

They can have witnesses killed, tamper with or destroy evidence, etc. The issue is whether the overall situation fits. Here, none of the 9-11 Truth theories make the cut when put to logical scrutiny.

Fine.

Adam Hobson and Scott Isaacs-

One question, yes or no answer is all that is required.

Is it possible that the events that led up to the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War including the events on 911 are not as the current Administration portrays them?

Is it possible?

Yes, with the caveat that it isn't nearly as different as it is typically portrayed.

I generally get lumped in with them, so I'll butt in and answer too. It's not only possible, it's probable (and in my mind definite).

Now, does that change my assessment of Willie's assessment of the WTC event?

Due to the fact that the evidence in reference to 911 was systematically destroyed in a timely fashion, your caveat is also plausible, but not factual.

Yes, a case that is closer to the official version than any alternate theories.

Epictetus, yes it's possible, but it's also possible that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, there is an invisible elephant behind you, Bill Belichick through the Super Bowl to remove some of the SpyGate pressure and the spaghetti monster created the universe.

But just because something is possible doesn't mean that it actually happened or exists.

I'd also argue that this administration was going to invade Iraq regardless of 9/11. I think if anything, 9/11 pushed back the Iraq invasion because we had to deal with Afghanistan first.

I agree. Hussein was on W's list at the beginning because he tried to assassinate his father.

There is a major difference between the polarity of the events of 911 and an invisible elephant, or a spaghetti monster. The attacks on the intelligence of those who view the plausibility of state sponsored terrorism are not necessary nor warranted. There are many intelligent people who see a paradox between the reality we are spoon fed by the same Administration that skewed intel just