READER COMMENTS ON
"What Bomb? What Testimony?"
(115 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 11:25 am PT...
Yeah, but who are you going to believe, eyewitnesses with no vested interested in lying who risked their lives to save total strangers, or a Government with a proven history of lying who worked against investigations for two years and has a vested interested in keeping the truth from coming out?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 11:44 am PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 12:16 pm PT...
This are eyewitness reports from people who were experiencing something they had never experienced before. Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable anyway and no doubt much worse in a situation like that. I mean no disrespect to any of those doing the reporting. But it is not evidence of or, to me, even suggestive of anything. If you have real evidence please tell us. But this makes me very very uncomfortable.
I love Bradblog. I am not a troll. Please, I wish you would not do this. You are giving the enemy ammunition and hurting your reputation on the election issue too.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 12:23 pm PT...
(CBC News: Sunday's Evan Solomon interviews Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission co-chair and co-author of the book "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission".)
I watched this last night and was surprised at Hamilton's answer to this question, plus his answer regarding the plane hitting the Pentagon.
Evan Solomon:" We’ve talked to one father who says, 'my son was killed by George W. Bush', as if the government had foreknowledge of the attacks. What would you say to someone like him and other family members who have been dissatisfied with the explanation?
Hamilton: Many families supported the report - very strongly - and have been instrumental in helping us on the implementation stage. A lot of the people that have doubts about the report - not all of them - are strongly anti-Bush, for a variety of reasons. Many of them are just anti-government, in other words, they don't believe anything the government says.
All I ask of these people is: give me your evidence. If you thought George Bush or Lee Hamilton or Tom Kean blew up those buildings, let’s see the evidence.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 12:23 pm PT...
I wish I had stills of the images I refrence in the following link I have posted here previously. Some moments within the film, in order to get to the scenes I mention, are hard to watch and rather disturbing. But when you see the way the debris looks - like what you would see in the form of snow drifts after a storm, there's no doubt some high velocity blast of air formed them. Also there are no windows visible at ground level, but then I don't know if they had been inset from the building's face at that location.
Due to the graphic nature of the film you will have to log in at youtube, or sign up, in order to view it.
"... Bluebear2 said on 8/8/2006 @ 10:35 am PT...
Here's a video (warning - people jumping and bodies) which shows a shot of the ground at the base of one of the towers. It is between 3:01 and 3:11 in the film. Notice the debris field and the "shadows" of the building columns. Now tell me there was not an explosion at ground level within the building!"
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 12:43 pm PT...
Despite the claims of eyewitnesses saying they heard explosions, I am deeply skeptical of the bomb in the building theory. Any sudden release of kinetic energy from whatever source sounds like an explosion. For instance, recently in Honolulu a rock rolled down a hill and crashed into the concrete wall of a house. The owner said he heard an explosion then, too. When the columns of the WTC buckled due to loss of strength from the heat, that undoubtedly caused an explosive release of energy, too. My college education was in architecture, and I took a number of civil engineering courses. I find the official analysis of the collapse pretty convincing.
There is far more fertile ground to sow elsewhere for people, like me, convinced that there was indeed complicity, if not worse, within our own government behind 9/11. I recommend people read The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. The author compiles and analyzes a lot of the damning information from published sources concerning Bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, and others, much like the Cooperative Research website of Paul Thompson's.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 12:49 pm PT...
General Scott: Thank you for your comment. I take it very seriously.
I love Brad Blog too (obviously!) and my history with it appears to be longer than yours ...
I can remember a time (not so long ago) when election fraud was considered "tin foil hat" material, when Brad was posting pictures and videos and --- yes --- transcripts of eyewitness testimony! about things that many people did not believe had happened.
Were there comments like yours then? Were there people who said "Hey man I love your blog but what are you doing publicizing this crazy shit?".
Of course there were! Brad and others answered their questions and we kept going. Eventually more and more people began to realize that he was doing good work --- and important work too.
And it's amazing how much people's perceptions have changed in only two years --- largely because Brad believed that was he was reporting was true, that it was being suppressed elsewhere, that it was important for the American public to see this material so they could understand what was happening.
how is this any different?
We've got this really weird situation going on here, General:
Videos and photographs and eyewitness testimony that appear to say one thing, and an official report that says something completely different, which was written by an "investigative" commission that was chaired by two men who now say they were lied to --- repeatedly --- by more than one government agency.
Meanwhile the Pentagon has admitted that it will lie to its own citizens whenever it wants to, because it considers lying to the home front a legitimate tactic of war. They call this "perception management".
Meanwhile serious academics and others are losing their jobs --- or worse --- for speaking their very well-informed minds.
Who you gonna believe?
Please, General Scott, and I mean this with all possible respect and all sincerity.
PLEASE DO NOT LECTURE ME ABOUT CREDIBILITY!
I have been trying to show you --- and everybody else --- where and how you are being lied to on a regular basis.
Nobody so far has challenged me on even a single detail of what I have written. I don't mind if they do; that's the whole point.
If you want to ask me about ANYTHING I have written, please do so. I am happy to field specific questions on any of it --- on all of it! That's how we establish credibility around here. At least that's how it has always worked in the past. So if you want to know more about any of this, the way to find out is to ASK!
IMVHO whenever you read a blog that won't take questions; whenever you read a blog that ignores controversial issues; whenever you read a newspaper op/ed columnist or watch a TV pundit --- guys who can base everything they say on "well that's my opinion"; These are the times when you should be questioning credibility.
And if you can see that they are clearly lying to you then you ought to start questioning their motives, too. IMVHO.
With all possible respect I repeat my offer:
If you want to ask me about ANYTHING I have written, please do so. I am happy to field specific questions on any of it --- on all of it! That's how we establish credibility around here.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 12:50 pm PT...
Some say the "military-industrial" complex was involved with 9/11. If so, this should exonerate Bush from any involvement - he did not serve in the military, and was a failure of a businessman!
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 12:51 pm PT...
We should not be concealing evidence, wherever it points. We don't know what happened that day. There hasn't been a proper trial of anyone alleged to have been involved. It hurts very much to believe something on an emotional level and discover that you have been lied to, so it may be difficult to hear contrary evidence, but this is the process by which we arrive at the truth.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 12:54 pm PT...
Winter Patriot, thank you for all you do.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 1:08 pm PT...
You can't categorically deny the "ear"witness testimony of bombs in the WTC. Have you read them? They are very consistent with each other and describe sounds like gunfire.
Also the media reported as it happened that there were explosions.
I emplore you to read through the testimony before you dismiss it as random noise.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 1:11 pm PT...
As "Licensed Structural Engineer" stated on the concurrent 9/11 thread here, steel is ductile. It bends before it breaks.
The perfectly straight pieces of steel columns flying out far beyond the dust clouds tell me something more than being crushed or air escaping collapsing floors has cut them loose and propelled them outward.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 1:24 pm PT...
WP, you're a great blogger, but right now, I'm a little disappointed in you.
I'm also a little bemused. It's a rare day when BradBlog waxes more conspiratorially than does Cannonfire.
Go to my page. Click on the links under the "Science vs. Bull" tab. I suggest that you read that stuff. Don't skim: Read.
You should also take a look at the "Screw Loose Change" counter video. http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/ (The first section is weak, but keep going.)
I am perfectly willing to listen to what Fetzer and his confreres have to say. What bothers me is the absolute unwillingness of the "controlled demolition" believers even to peruse material which calls their beloved theories into question.
Is that fair?
If you give BOTH sides a hearing, you will discover that the bomb-boys have made a poor argument.
If you want to see evidence that many quotes such as those given above are either mis-stated or yanked from context, see this page:
Par particular attention to the parts you left out of Karin Deshore's words. As Oscar Wilde once said, "Quotation can be slander, if you gerrymander."
Nearly all the quotes you give have non-conspiratorial explanations, if you look at them objectively.
You should check out this link to see what a transformer explosion looks like:
There was a lot of electricity running through those buildings. Also pipes carrying gas up to the restaurant on the top floor. Secondary explosions --- lots of 'em --- are to be expected.
The fact is, not a single expert in controlled demolitions has come out in favor of this nonsensical theory.
Look closely at video footage of any genuine controlled demolition. (There's a doozy in the "Screw Loose Change" video.) The WTC fell from the TOP DOWN. Real controlled demolitions operate from the BOTTOM UP --- that is, the GROUND floor is the first to go boom. The WTC disaster looked about as much like a controlled demolition as I look like the incredible Hulk.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 1:25 pm PT...
I agree with Ewastud, Nafeez Ahmeds book The War on Truth is definitively one of the better books on the subject of al-Qaeda, terrorism and the workings of the US government in relation to it. Highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand modern day terrorism.
I was also sceptical of the demolition theory for a long time. However, I no longer have much doubt. The numerous eyewitnesses, photos and videos that describe and seemingly show explosions and effects thereof, along with a lack of other good explanations for the very unusual and quick pulverizations of the entire buildings has left the impression in me that explosives are the most credible explanation. I have not seen these eyewitness reports before though and they further convince me of the accuracy of the demolition theory.
I saw a documentary the other day, one presenting the official story, where I noticed another oddity, apparently a firefighter and a few others survived even though they were on the fourth floor when the building collapsed on top of them. They were lying there neatly under a few pieces of debris with no serious injuries. How can a pancake-collapse of a 110 story building where all the floors supposedly fall on top of each other and rush downwards not cause a massive pile of floors to be stacked on top of floor 4? Where did the other 100+ floors go? The firefighter suggested that the collapse had somehow lost momentum when it reached the lower floors because of a pile already forming at the bottom, an explanation that doesn't quite satisfy me. If the floors above them had been dispersed and pulverized in an explosion however.. well you get the idea.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 1:32 pm PT...
Joseph Cannon: I think we've debunked "debunking911" a long long long time ago, just like the Popular mechanics propoganda.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 1:37 pm PT...
I don't remember much about how the towers came down. Plus, I'm Canadian so which tower is the south or north or whatever is meaningless to me.
However, after watching all the recaps and documentaries and such on CBC last night I'm not sure what to think. The first tower they showed on the documentary "9/11 toxic" something (great show btw focusing on the health problems caused by the dust and debris) definitely fell like it was a controlled demo. However, it clearly collapses and falls from the top down. Almost right near the top of the building the top couple floors collapse down forcing the whole building to start falling floor by floor to the ground.
ANy thoughts on this and how it fits into the whole controlled demo? Which building was this?
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 9/11/2006 @ 1:51 pm PT...
I'll stick with "Logic over Lies" three skyscrapers burned down that day &
two airplanes vaporized . . . Pigs can fly & I can whistle dixie out my asshole too . . .
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 1:55 pm PT...
The potential energy (mass x acceleration of gravity x height to center of gravity) of the falling mass of all three buildings was the equivalent of more than 1 million pounds of TNT.
It is clear that the vast majority of the destruction must have come from the release of potential energy even if explosives were present.
Be very careful what you try to attribute to explosives. It can be, will be, and has already been used against us. And if the powers-that-be can prove anything we say to be false they'll be able to effectively say it is all false.
It is conceivable that explosives were used to initiate collapse, but the amount needed would have been tiny compared to the energy released by the falling mass. This is also true of planned demolitions using explosives.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 2:00 pm PT...
The top-to-bottom style of the collapse is a non-issue. It has no value when trying to refute demolition theories.
Explosives being set off in a manner not usually seen in controlled demolitions suggests or proves nothing. It would be just as easy to rig explosives to begin blowing things up at the top as it would be to make them blow things up at the bottom first.
As far as I can see, the floors don't seem to be falling to the ground one on top of the other as much as they are spewing out sideways and forming this giant ring of falling dust and debris around the building.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 2:14 pm PT...
You are quite right Winter Patriot (#7). I probably did read similar posts here about the election issue. I was reading BradBlog right after the 2004 (s)election I believe. I, personally, found most of the evidence posted quite convincing and appropriate. No, I don’t post comments often and I have only posted under this name for a couple of days as part of a very sarcastic response to someone talking about the Mexican election.
I do not mean to lecture you about credibility, I like your stuff and, mostly I do find it credible. This is intended as 100% constructive criticism. I think it is important. I guess I knew I would stir up a hornets nest and it is not worth going on and on about it. If I had questions to ask, I would ask them. People have suggested a number of references here that are helpful. I did not see what I was supposed to see on the video link though. You have reported the eyewitness testimony and the reports are certainly true.
I continue to suggest that the testimony here, by itself says nothing, it is not even weak evidence, it is not evidence. Firecrackers in my neighborhood sound like gunshots, exactly like gunshots. This is not intended as a smartassed remark but I could certainly provide you with links to discussions of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony to try to strengthen my point but that may be a bit off topic for now.
We have certainly been lied to. The neocons are prepared do whatever it takes to stay in power. We are one fake terror attack now from a full blown fascist government. Brad and you guys are my heros. If it were not for people like you where would we be? Keep up the great work. (Here’s a question: What happened to the whispering campaign? I always thought that was a fabulous project)
It is perfectly plausible that the neocons or their reptilian relatives had something to do with this. I am perfectly willing to believe it they were involved if there is serious evidence for it (as there surely is for election fraud and has been since 2002). I have often wondered though, why more attention has not been paid to the anthrax attack that followed shortly after 9-11. That has always smelled much more like a Karl Rove stunt to me. And the investigation was abruptly stopped after they tried to frame somebody and it didn’t work. I will raise more than eyebrow if there is another attack with loss of life.
This to me was glaring and surprising logical mistake otherwise I would not have made a stink about it. With other evidence though, (testimony from engineers and demolition experts perhaps) I could easily change my mind. It is hard enough dealing with the nut case, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory label without making well known mistakes that can be corrected and avoided. I am labeled as a nut too, of course. We need to be careful as you as you well know. In general, I think BradBlog is.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 2:22 pm PT...
BigDan, could you provide your links debunking the Popular Mechanics to this blog?
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 2:25 pm PT...
GeneralScott, I don't understand how you can say that earwitness testimony is not evidence. You may discount it as unreliable, if you like, but you cannot exclude it from consideration by others.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 2:41 pm PT...
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 2:44 pm PT...
Serious questions, in any case, General (and others) ...
Here's my position; please tell me if you think I'm wrong.
Anybody who wants to cast doubt on the credibility of Brad's election reporting will do it one way or another. If they want to claim that Brad is unreliable because when he was on the road, the guest blogger who filled in for him posted excerpts of the testimony given by New York's very finest, as published in the New York Times, then they can go ahead.
Five years ago the firefighters and the paramedics and the EMTs were being hailed as American heroes! And now I can't even post their actual words without risking charges pertaining to my credibility!
Not that I expect the charges to come from you, General. I really do understand your point, and I do believe that we are on the same "side" here. Thanks again for your detailed and thoughtful comments.
You see the position I'm in? Being an honest reporter is no different now than it's ever been, but being seen as an honest reporter is getting more and more difficult, as the atmosphere has become more and more poisoned. Do I give up? Or do I keep going --- keep trying to cover all kinds of issues, no matter how controversial they may be? In my opinion if I shy away from the hot topics I lose my credibility about everything else. But either way, it's an ugly choice, is it not?
More about The Whispering Campaign later.
More about Joseph Cannon's comment later too.
Family calls, and so on... It's not that I'm scared of you guys! but I can't really give you good answers till I have time, which will probably be tomorrow. I promise I won't forget.
Thanks to all for your comments, pro and con.
Please keep letting us all know what you think.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 3:17 pm PT...
I really don't see this bomb in the building theory being a significant issue --- more of a distraction really in comparison to more fruitful areas of inquiry surrounding 9/11. Even if it could be established that it was a controlled demolition, the questions would be how it was done, by whom, and for what reason. On the other hand it seems just on the face of it incredible that four planes could be hijacked and flown around for the time involved (45 minutes to an hour or more) without the slightest effort to intercept them until it was too late.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 3:27 pm PT...
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 3:34 pm PT...
I have a question: These Popular Mechanics guys have a book called "9/11 Debunking", are these PM guys also running this debunking911 site? Does anyone know?
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 3:45 pm PT...
Joseph Cannon, I have a few questions for you:
1. Why did WTC-7 fall freefall demolition style in its own footprint and wasn't hit by a plane?
2. Do you think electronic voting machines are being hacked into, and do you think they CAN be hacked into?
3. Are you for the Iraq War?
4. Do you think there's WMD's and links between Al Quada and Sadaam?
5. Do you think Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly are GOP propogandists or unbiased accurate news people?
6. Do you think st911.org are wrong and the Bush government is right about 9/11?
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 3:50 pm PT...
>>Be very careful what you try to attribute to >>explosives. It can be, will be, and has already been >>used against us.
Gotta agree with Onyx here (and Joseph Cannon, etc).
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing here that makes even the smallest of cases for the "intentional demolation" conspiracy theory.
Rest assured that people who want to obfuscate the real issues on this blog - the Voting Issues - will mercilessly attack Brad and others' credibility by referring to this nonsense.
Voting rights/reform is still *the* issue here. It is a past, present, and future issue.
Let's hold focus on that. Otherwise, we blog at the peril of Brad entirely losing credibility.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 3:53 pm PT...
OUCH OUCH OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ONE OF THE GUYS FROM LOOSE CHANGE JUST CALLED ONE OF THE GUYS FROM POPULAR MECHANICS A LIAR RIGHT TO HIS FACE!!!!!!!!!
OUCH OUCH OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(realtime play by play from big dan, watching democracy now!)
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 3:56 pm PT...
They just got to WTC-7.....
....U still watching Jon Bonet's killer on CNN & FOX?
...or ABC's 9/11 propoganda special????
I'm on LINK-TV & FSTV, watching a debate between Loose Change and Popular Mechanics...
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:03 pm PT...
OK, it's over, here's my take: The 2 guys from Popular mechanics were middle-aged slick used car salesmen, and I was astounded that the 2 Loose Change guys were young kids. At first, I think the young guys were not as professional, but much more enthusiastic and got better and better as it went along, and finished with a knock-out punch. The PM used car salesmen didn't really say anything specific or answer any of the Loose Change guys specific accusations. Win for the 2 young Loose Change guys, going up against the 2 middle-aged slick used car salesmen from Chertoff's PM mag...
One thing to keep in mind, Loose Change is NOT st911.org, I'd like to see these PM propogandists now debate the scholars and scientists from st911.org.
It was a victory before it started for the 2 young Loose Change guys: Getting on TV news and PM hucksters actually showing up.
What's that saying? First they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then THEY SHOW UP ON FUCKING DEMOCRACY NOW TO DISPUTE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:07 pm PT...
More than a decade ago, a right-wing nutjob named Milton "Bill" Cooper was promoting the theory that JFK was shot by his driver. Lots of youngsters who didn't know the JFK case were sucked in by this nonsense. WHen I tried to tell one Cooperite that his head had been received anal lodging, his reponse was "So you think Oswlad did it alone?"
You remind me of that guy.
I've discussed WT7 at some length in my own blog. I've also given links to sites which look into it in greater detail. That place was loaded with deisel fuel; there were inherently unsafe transfer trusses over massive transformers. Photos show that there was an "entry hole" on the south side. We have quotes from firemen (which the bomb brigade studiously keep you from knowing about) to the effect that they felt the building was unstable and would not last long. Those guys were IN the building, or they were in communication with firemen who were.
The pro-bombs sites NEVER show you the photos of the south side of the building, which was entirely ablaze --- to do so would destroy their argument. These people are such despicable liars they should be working for the Bush administration.
So...anyone who disputes your conspiracy theory must be in favor of the Iraq war? Must be a Hannity/Limbaugh clone? A comment like that is the very definition of demagoguery. Disgusting!
Again, I am willing to look at any evidence you offer. I will click on any link you send and read the evidence, if there IS any evidence. You, on the other hand, close your eyes to the other side. The only facts that matter are the ones that support your preconceptions.
You also close your eyes to the iffy backgrounds of the people promoting this nonsense --- Chris Bollyn and the Willis Carto crowd, Adnan Khashoggi, the vile John Grey, UFO-spotter Jim Marrs, Jim Fetzer (universally despised by all responsible JFK researchers for his ridiculous assault on the Zapruder film), Dick Eastman (a guy who feels comfortable saying that the Rockefellers controlled the USSR)...
Meanwhile, the folks who dispute the controlled demolition theory --- a group that would include Kos, Al Franken, Josh Marshall (not to mention nearly ALL of the old-school JFK researchers) --- are damned as conservative apologists and lovers of Limbaugh because they, we, refuse to countenance an assault on science and logic.
I'll be meeting up with Brad soon, and I'll ask him where he stands on this. I suspect that he too may be the case that he too is your idea of an "Iraq war supporter."
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:08 pm PT...
I'm glad you logged on again, Joseph Cannon. Please answer the questions I posed to you above, before posting anything else. I didn't even read what you said, I'm not going to, until you answer those questions.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:12 pm PT...
I suspect you fall in line with:
You support the Iraq War, even though it's based on lies.
You think e-vote machines are secure and Bush legitimately won in 2000 & 2004.
You fully back politicians' story (Bushco) over the scholars & scientists of st911.org.
You think Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly are trustworthy sources for news, and are not GOP biased propogandists.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:15 pm PT...
What do you think of 70% of the workers who were cleared to clear WTC rubble, now having lung ailments and some have died?
What do you think of the hundreds of thousands of Vets who came home from Bush War I & II healthy, and are now disabled or dead from Depleted Uranium?
What do you think of the Downing Street memo's???
I have some more questions for later...
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:22 pm PT...
(these are what are called "questions"...not conspiracy theories, can you answer them?)
1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?
2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial airlines, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001?
3. Why did FEMA lie about their presence in New York on 9/11?
4. Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom?
5. Why did George H.W. Bush meet bin Laden's brother on 9/11?
6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the flights all use the term boxcutters?
7. Where are the flight recorders?
8. Why were the FISA warrants discontinued?
9. How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?
10 Why was security meeting scheduled for 9/11 cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?
11. How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly?
12. How did they find the terrorist's cars at the airports so quickly?
13. Why did Shrub dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force?
14. Why the strange pattern of debris from Flight 93?
15. How extensive was the relationship between the Taliban, the ISI and the CIA?
16. What exactly was the role of Henry Kissinger at UNOCAL?
17. When was it decided to cancel building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan?
18. Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to investigate Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington?
19. Why did .Bush stop inquiries into terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?
20. Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?
21. Who gave the decision to give him a security job at the World Trade Center?
22. Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the night of September 10th?
23. What about media reports that hijackers bought tickets for flights scheduled after Sept. 11?
24. Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists?
25. Why would devout Muslims frequent bars, drink alcoholic beverages and leave their bibles?
26. Why would the hijackers use credit cards and allow drivers licenses with photos to be zeroxed?
27. Why did the hijackers force passengers to call relatives?
28. How did the hijackers change the flight plan without law enforcement or the military try to stop them?
29. How did a hijackers passport miraculously appear near the WTC? Who found it and what time?
30. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?
31. Why was there not one "innocent" Muslim on board any of these flights?
32. Did someone go through the passenger lists looking for Muslim names and label them as hijackers?
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
Licensed Structural Engineer
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:47 pm PT...
LOL @ The WTC disaster looked about as much like a controlled demolition as I look like the incredible Hulk.
I say the WTC disaster looked about as much like a gravity driven collapse as Dick Cheney looks like Superman. (you remember, truth, justice, and the American way?)
Respectfully to Mr. Cannon - from what I've found, the largest structural members were the vertical steel columns, 3" thick box girders, welded 1000 feet tall, that bore a good portion of the gravity load of the building for 35 years.
As a structural / metals engineer, the first question I ask is: how did those columns fail? In my experience, we should examine the failed points of the steel to determine - was the steel stretched before it failed? Or did it snap on a brittle plane? This is how we determine the cause and hopefully prevent future re-occurences of structural tragedies. We look at the failure points to determine what parts failed and why.
For this case of the WTC, I would be *VERY* interested in seeing the failure points of any of these 94 girders; did they buckle? did they shear? were they blown up or melted? I don't see how you could know any more than I do - if you have the information, please share it. Are there any documented photos of these failure points? I can't find them. Are there any signs of the 94 massive columns in the phtos of the WTC aftermath? I've read the reports, I've looked around - no luck yet. I read your science vs bull section and didn't find my answers there. Perhaps you are aware of some links that would show a curious old engineer more than speculations on paper and a hole in the ground. http://911lies.org/image...losion_perfect_small.jpg
And if you say to yourself, surely this fellow is mistaken or I'm sure NIST or the other engineers would have mentioned this; all I would ask is that you don't take their word for it any more than you take mine and investigate further.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:55 pm PT...
The demolition of WTC 7 is another problem. When exactly was WTC 7 rigged with explosives? Had people been working in WTC 7 for weeks(if not months) without knowing that the building had been wired? How could it have been wired and demolished with the time frame of the attacks unless there was a crew ready and waiting to wire it? And if that was true, how did the building's owner know to have them on call? Or know to call them at all?
Imagine yourself going to work each day and then, after a few weeks, finding out that your office was laced with explosive material.
Inside job and Silverstein was in on it? Why?
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 4:57 pm PT...
Uh-OH! The cat's out of the bag now!! Let the fur fly! Just in time for the people who are now screaming for the real "truth about 9/11". I hope they're ready for the ugly truth because it's-a-comin' soon.
Just saw some timelines released on Think Progress plus plenty of others which do not add up. Many things are yet to be revealed which will probably indict this administration.
ABC/Disney may well turn out to be the heroes in all of this because they "outed" the corrupt intentions of this administration (what are they hiding?) to rewrite history... along with their affiliation with right wing christofascists... that paints a pretty nasty picture right now.
Every cloud has a silver lining, they say and when the smoke settles from ABC's fake documentary, people will be screaming for the "real truth" because it's now turned the microscopic lens to the fact that Americans do not know the facts about what occurred. And, this time 'round, they will demand to find the truth.
You'd have to wonder why so many people have gone to such great lengths and financial investment to alter the "truth" of recorded history? For them to even consider such an action, this has to be HUGE and very indicting.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 5:45 pm PT...
When I was 16, JFK was assassinated. Many years after the event, people are still discussing conspiracy theories. There was even a trial with Clay Shaw as defendant. He was acquitted for lack of evidence.
These theories about a 9/11/01 conspiracy are similar to the JFK assassination theories. They are very, very hard to prove in a court of law. Do yourself a favor and let it go. Your questions will not be answered to your satisfaction in your lifetime.
Our efforts here would be better directed to things that we can do. Make every vote count. Elect honest, liberal candidates. Reduce crime. Make this world a better place for mankind.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:01 pm PT...
Big Dan, WP, Agent 99..You guys are the best! This thread gives me hope the truth is going to come out about the perps. of 9/11. I didn't believe the govt. line before I read anything to refute it. Common sense will tell you that the perps. are criminal but not smart.Joseph Cannon..I've read cannonfire every day for months.I just wrote you an e mail because I WAS a big fan. Your investigative skills evidently have some blind spots. I know you are brilliant..Hope you aren't on the take.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:10 pm PT...
Big Dan: I've been away for a while and didn't see this one coming, but I have to say: Please don't be afraid of Joseph Cannon. He's one of the good guys; he's done a lot more digging into 9/11 than I have, and I tend to take him seriously... and I will do so, at least until he starts writing opera again .
I have to be away for the next several hours and of course I have no control over what you do here but I would ask that you try to have a civilized discussion in which people can learn something.
In other words, please show 'em Brad Blog at its best.
Thanks, and more later.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:11 pm PT...
Having read many of your comments over the last few weeks, it is my considered opinion that you really should find a more appropriate screen name. Beside the fact that it slaps Mike Malloy in the face every time you use it, it's obviously not true... or certainly not always, and certainly not here. Our efforts are being directed at things that we can do, and TELLING THE TRUTH is one of them.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:34 pm PT...
Truth Seeker wrote "Many years after the event, people are still discussing conspiracy theories. There was even a trial with Clay Shaw as defendant. He was acquitted for lack of evidence.
"These theories about a 9/11/01 conspiracy are similar to the JFK assassination theories. They are very, very hard to prove in a court of law."
- too true, too true... one major difference that I see with 911 is the existence of the Internet and the rapid exchange of ideas and information that presents the evidence to a much wider audience, much faster than JFK.
For example, right now I'm listening to the Pop Mech guys get destroyed in a debate that happened on 'Democracy Now' just today, http://ia331316.us.archi...1/dn2006-0911-1_64kb.mp3
a show I never otherwise would have heard of let alone listen to if it were not for the Internet. If it weren't for the 'net, I'm afraid to say I would probably believe the Popular Mechanics bull crap.
But as it is, I don't - and I know more are waking up every day!!
Knowledge is Power! The truth will set you free!
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:37 pm PT...
Not coincidental that JFK comes to the fore when discussing 9/11, is it. In fact, analogies have been drawn everywhere today. Not a coincidence?? Maybe the Warren Commission wasn't looking in the right places? There seems to be one constant in both of these great american tragedies....Bush!
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:39 pm PT...
One question I would add to the list.
How can you explain the collapse of WTC7 when clearly it was not struck by a plane, and had minimal fires.
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:44 pm PT...
#46 Perhaps JFK and 9/11 have a common thread? Anyone consider how the House of Bush may have been present at both? Bush, Sr., head of CIA back then…hmmmm. One has to wonder.
I have considered it. Not only that but look at OKC 4.19.95 - very similar MO (IMO) to WTC - buildings seemingly hit from outside, but in fact, secondary explosives were at work.
Personally, I think they are all tied together by some common perpetrators.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:45 pm PT...
Why didn't the so-called 9/11 Commission ever take any eye witness testimony..? These guys should go to Rolling Stone magazine, to start with and make as much noise as possible, to any newspaper, talk show host, any Democratic (or Republican) politician and start screaming their heads off...!!,
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 6:53 pm PT...
Comment on Joseph Cannon (#13)... the math used by the physics blogger on your blog is incorrect. You cannot multiply the energy within the system by the number of floors, as they are each at different heights, and will possess different amounts of potential energy. Also, the assumption here is that the conseration of mass is in place. All the "physics" used by your blogger applies only to idealized Hamiltonian systems, where the phase volume of position and momenta are conserved over time.
This is unlikely in a dissipative system with non-negligible losses of energy. Come on.... we all know a bowling ball and a feather will not hit the ground at the same time... unless in a vacuum.
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 7:07 pm PT...
Two giant Red Woods on fire, shred themselves into sawdust from the top down. A third falls into itself.
Impossible you say.
9/11 proved us all wrong. Impossible things can happen when we believe it to be so.
So, IF the NIST is to be believed, and for the sake of the argument I'll buy their claim; The integrity of the building was weakened by the impact of a plane and the resulting fire and thus the building fell. This would be true for the floors affected.
WTC I ~ Hit between floors 93-99. Fires raged from there upward.
WTC II ~ Hit between floors 77-85. Fires raged from there upward.
The collapse of both towers were similar. But the bigger question remains unanswered.
WHAT WEAKENED THE INTEGRITY OF FLOORS ZERO - 50?
They were not on fire. They were not hit by a plane. Certainly people insist that the energy released by the collapse of the upper floors caused their demise. But then to assert that is to say that the energy was present as part of the buildings design. The reason I say zero - 50, a rough estimate, is that when the upper floors began to fail, their sluffing suddenly turned inward to force the energy/pressure release of the lower floors and their subsequent collapse. Shouldn't floors 50-70, having NOT BEEN DAMAGED in any way, what-so-ever, impeded the collapse not enhanced it?
But then again. It is all speculative.
NEVER before, or again will this happen. Scientists will debate this subject forever. The debris cloud that obscured the building on it's way down shields us from true examination OF the event in motion. We only have the littered debris that is left as our evidence. And of that, there are only select pieces.
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 7:08 pm PT...
Thank you for reading my comments. I chose "Truth Seeker" independently of Malloy and because someone else was using my real name. Now it appears automatically and I will change it if the majority of Bradbloggers wish. Please give me a new name.
Can you tell me how asking all of these unanswerable questions is seeking truth? I read no new truths in #1-40.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 7:13 pm PT...
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 7:14 pm PT...
The JFK assassination controversy is not over by a long shot, nor should it be as long as there are still documents being kept secret about it by our government. However, some documents have been released over the past few decades, including a telegram from Ms. J. Edgar Hoover asking someone on his staff if George Bush of the CIA can tell them the reaction of the Cubans in Florida to the assassination. Also, another telegram from GHWB himself on 11/22/63 to someone else in the govmint claiming he was in Midland, TX when he heard of the assassination.
GHWB for his part has claimed he was never in the CIA until he was its director in 1976. LOL. Like that really happens! But other circumstantial evidence indicates he was a covert operative since about 1959 when the Bay of Pigs invasion was being planned by his buddy and mentor, Dick Nixon, Dulles, and others in the Eisenhower administration. Bush's Zapata Offshore Oil company was allegedly a front CIA company to get men and materials to an island off the coast of Cuba to help launch the attack. There is plenty more if you follow the web search engine leads. Sorry, but this is somewhat of a diversion. Some FBI investigations and prosecutions of mob murders take decades to solve and bring to trial. The super-mafia involving the Bushes, et al may take just as long.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 7:58 pm PT...
Dunno. Maybe "Proud Pragmatist"?
Just plain "Seeker"?
Bringing you excerpts from the real testimony of first responders, with links to the PDFs of all their testimony, as well as a link to a long list of first responders' testimony, has got to be seen as telling the truth. Not even the truth as we see it, notwithstanding our emphasis on certain parts of it, but the truth of what real people have really said, pointing to how it corroborates the excellent science being conducted and disseminated by people with doctorates in physics and other fields, people who are risking their jobs and lives to bring the truth out. They are doing it for ALL of us, and I know it's past time we ALL stopped talking about this as if it were an "issue", with honest pros and cons, something wherein disagreement is productive of improvement.
The laws of physics state unequivocally that the official story is a bald-faced lie. While not everything said against that story is The Truth, there can be no question that many efforts in this regard are truth themselves, or attempts to get at it. Serious, strong-minded, honest, patriotic and supremely brave grown ups are staking time, effort, livelihoods and lives on it. They are doing it for YOU, and for everyone else.
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 8:09 pm PT...
A friend just emailed me this excerpt from a message board:
I thought that you might like to know that 911 Truth is airing right now on NORWEGIAN TV2. This is a mainstream station. It is a program with the Jersey Widows, and there are serious questions being asked - not just by the widows, but (implicit) those the viewer is being asked. I rejoice! I honestly never would have thought that the media here would dare to do this! Let this be but the beginning!
Does that rock, or what?
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 8:18 pm PT...
3 bombs at OK City! I had only ever heard of one - the rental truck full of ammonium nitrate.
Thanks for that link!
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 8:30 pm PT...
That's excellent as is your work here with Winter.
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 8:36 pm PT...
We lost JFK and RFK and it really hurt. The Kennedy family asked us to let it go and I respect that. We lost some battles but are still fighting the war.
9/11/01 was the date of another battle we lost.
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 9:08 pm PT...
There has been talk here regarding the South side of WTC7 and the damage done there. Earlier today I did a search on it and mostly only found photos showing smoke on the South side. There was one photo showing flames at several windows on one floor about a third of the way in from the end of the building.
Also I found this regarding damage to the South West lower corner.
The smoke appears to be coming from the whole side of the building.
There appears to be a fairly stiff wind from the North which would indeed cause the smoke to eminate from the South side.
Also playing into affect is the fact that it is a rather massive structure and the wind blowing past it would create a low pressure zone on the down-wind side which would tend to hold the smoke in this wind shadow giving the appearence of the whole side of the building smoking.
I have seen this in the mountains during storms when a cloud blows over the top of a ridge and is drawn down behind it where it remins circulating around until it finally dissipates in a rag-tag manner.
I just can't get past the image of the whole building falling in unison from corner to corner in one smooth motion.
Had a central portion, or one end collapsed leaving a portion standing, or falling over sideways, I would be more inclined to think structural failure.
But with the way it happened I will never buy that reasoning.
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 9:08 pm PT...
>>Molly:"..Hope you aren't on the take."
Ok, that is downright silly. Anybody that doesn't believe there is any evidence to support your theoretical point of view is "on the take"?
Molly, Joseph Cannon seems like a great guy, and is most definitely on our side. I don't think that any of us will get anywhere if, when somebody doesn't agree, we say things like that. Do you really think trying to twist somebody's arm is an intellectual debating skill?
Look. We are all on a search for truth here.
And I know BushCo is evil. BushCo's ineptness is to blame for the 9/11 hijackers not getting caught, but that is all we know so far.
Trying to link BushCo to some scheme of deliberate demolition of the trade centre, with what ammounts to nothing but hand-waving and hazy physics theories, is not only irresponsible, but is self-destructive.
Self-destructive to this blog, and to people who enjoy here.
COMMENT #62 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 9:16 pm PT...
Truth Seeker #59
9/11/01 was the date we were blind-sided by a battle we never expected. (I use "we" in the sense of the public as the Government had plenty of warnings. - "Never expected" in that we trusted our Government and could not believe they would be implicit in such a horror)
As long as we strive for the Truth and work towards the revelation of those involved and their punishment, I will not consider it a battle lost.
COMMENT #63 [Permalink]
said on 9/11/2006 @ 9:41 pm PT...
There is a lot more than "hand-waving and hazy physics theories" linking Bush to 9/11. Please read up on the 1998 PNAC Agenda.
ps This report seems to have vanished from its original location at the ABC archives - Hmm fancy that!
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
Licensed Structural Engineer
said on 9/11/2006 @ 10:17 pm PT...
MikeyCanWhat? wrote: Trying to link BushCo to some scheme of deliberate demolition of the trade centre, with what ammounts to nothing but hand-waving and hazy physics theories, is not only irresponsible, but is self-destructive.
Mr. Mikey - simple questions: where were the massive columns at the conclusion of the collapse. Has anyone physically examined them and analyzed why they failed?
Do you understand and have good answers to these fairly straightforward questions, or do you equate asking them with self-destructive hand-waving and hazy physics?
I don't take NIST at face value - after thoroughly reviewing their theories, I could pick their crap apart all day, but rather than countering their conjecture, I think it is much more illustrative to ask of non-technical gurus such as yourself: where are the strongest components of the towers (the core vertical columns) in the aftermath photos? Where are the pictures of the columns' failure planes? Why are they not available to the public? IMO if NIST's report were legit, there would be pictures of failed steel box columns from the cores (ACTUAL DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE!) to accompany their official reports.
Maybe I've missed something and if so I apologize and ask that you please show me the light - give me a link with the evidence, any evidence more than speculative non-physical modeling. Otherwise the only thing propping up your non-demolition theory (in the face of substantial evidence such as observed molten metal) is what amounts in my fairly educated opinion to hazy physics theories and hand-waving by NIST.
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 2:08 am PT...
COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 3:28 am PT...
I think we have domestic terrorists within our own government.
I think that if we really want national security, we should start yanking the security clearances of the folks at the very top.
That the citizens/public/we the people (people like you and me) need to take control of the ports and borders. And I think that won't be allowed because of the corruption at the very top.
I think that if we really want domestic spying, then we should start spying on the folks at the very top.
I think if we want to know what happened to the pentagon, the blackboxes, the two towers and #7 (my how quickly that got wired to blow), that *ALL* the files and evidence must be released. I think this will not happen as long as we don't have honest folks at the very top. I don't want to hear no fucking shit about national secrets. Anyone that says that shit should have their background checked. Were they in Iran Contra?
I think that if we want elections that have any semblence of honesty and integrity, that these Secretary of States that have just one little complaint against them should be removed from power--by force, until they can prove they are not guilty, not the other way around. And that all these electronic devices, digitized data, and networks being used currently, MUST BE DESTROYED, and instead paper in the light of the day with all political parties counting manually.
I think that there is also a problem with private information and databases. And that getting a fucking letter from the VA is a horseshit fucking bandaid. That fucker in charge of the VA should be in a fucking JAIL. Or should we just let our government release the names of all our spys, op's, military so that they and their famillies can be attacked? Why not just give away all our fucking secrets too!?
I think that every active duty, and guard military that swore an oath is going to have to be the one that cleans this mess up. Because if they don't the only alternative is either a constitutional republic that doesn't follow either the constitution or existing laws; or civil war once folks have finally had enough.
I think this fucking war on terrorism has some very real aspects, but that the corrupt oath breaking leadership has a different agenda than solving this shit once and for all. I think I will give you a hint, war profeeteering, total communications control, and political power over the entire planet.
I think if it all continues in countries that didn't do a fucking thing to us, and we don't start fucking talking to other countries, that nukes will happen next, maybe in our country, maybe not. Where ever it happens, this is just going to piss everyone off like a giant fucking hornets nest.
I was only a fucking aircraft electrician in the USAF. So I Have some military background. But, I don't trust the pentagon. I don't trust the whitehouse. I don't trust the cia. I don't trust the nsa. I do trust our military. So there you have it, my opinion on where the cleanup has to be, and who is going to have to do it. I am not sure how far the rabbit hole goes, but I think if we don't do something about it there won't be a planet earth in the future.
And no I ain't a christian with an armagedion bent (i don't buy into non of that shit, MEN are tha assholes doing shit).. wicca if you must know.
If we don't stop being scared, and if we don't stop the propaganda it is only going to get much worse. I wouldn't count out trains to gas chambers for our future!
COMMENT #67 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 3:38 am PT...
If anything, to solve the question of structure, a new structure should be built (in the middle of nowhere) and drone aircraft flown into it.
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 4:33 am PT...
What a thread! This is a Brad Blog classic for sure --- all over the place until suddenly not; then all over the place again. How could I not add my three cents and enhance the confusion?
Licensed Structural Engineer re: #38
the largest structural members were the vertical steel columns, 3" thick box girders, welded 1000 feet tall
there's a man standing in the front-center of this picture. Behind him --- that's one of the box girders you're talking about, right?
I haven't seen the steel in person and I'm not a specialist by any means. But the steel in this instance appears to have been cut (i.e. not softened, bent, buckled, and/or snapped) Do you agree with me on this?
Now: What's "dripping" from the "cut"? Any ideas?
Joseph Cannon: I've never known a time when I agreed more strongly with the sentiment "a picture's worth a thousand words". I have checked out the links from your site, studied some of them fairly closely, read most of the others once-through at least. Didn't have three hours to devote to screwing loose change but I do get the idea. Back to the links for a moment --- you've got thousands and thousands of words there, and none of them even begin to explain (to my satisfaction, anyway) how the steel in this very same picture came to be the way it is. Unless...
Maybe you can explain to me: how exactly do you think the towers fell?
I don't mean to be snarky by asking such a simple question but I have been all over those links and I see all sorts of things but no basic overview of the point(s) that these pages are attempting to make. Maybe I'm thick. Are you saying the steel got hot and weak and failed? Box girders just snapped clean off like the one in the picture? Enlighten me, SVP.
And this next bit may be way OT or not at all --- you decide:
Is it really true that Jim Fetzer is
universally despised by all responsible JFK researchers for his ridiculous assault on the Zapruder film
and are you quite sure that (from your blog now)
Fetzer annoyed nearly all of the responsible researchers when he called into question the Zapruder film, which is the best evidence in favor of conspiracy.
I ask these questions (although they may be slightly OT) because my experience has been quite different. Correct me if I'm wrong on any or all of these observations:
 The CIA had the Zapruder film from Friday night Novenber 22nd until Sunday the 24th.
 CIA had/have the most sophisticated photo-lab in the world.
 The alterations in the film are obvious.
 David Lifton mentioned all these things in "Best Evidence" (1980).
 The nation yawned --- stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
 During the next decade or so, an "assassination research community" grew up around the notion that the Zapruder film provided "an accurate clock on the events" of the day.
 Fetzer came along and said "Guys! The film has been doctored!" and all hell broke loose.
I had been saying the same thing, Joseph. I didn't even know about Fetzer. I had learned it from Lifton. But I didn't yawn. And later, when I first got "online", it was so exciting! and I headed straight for the JFK assassination newsgroups and mailing lists ... and I was first surprised and then shunned and finally "frozen out" because I was trying to tell them the same thing that Fetzer told them later --- only they couldn't freeze him out the same way they did with me.
In my view --- and you are certainly welcome to disagree with me on this as on anything else --- if Fetzer had been full of shit they should have told him so, ignored him and moved on. And if he wasn't full of shit then they should have stopped worshipping the false idol and done so gratefully! After all, are we looking for the truth or are we not?
And by the way, the Z film is not the best evidence of conspiracy in the assassination. That would be the body. In the absence of the body, the autopsy. Or the records thereof. The film is extremely valuable, even in its obviously altered condition, but let's not get carried away.
Our efforts here would be better directed to things that we can do. Make every vote count...
I agree that making every vote count is very important, but is that something we can do? I think a realistic assessment would have to be "maybe not" --- but that's no reason not to strive for it anyway. I see election integrity as a vital issue --- but maybe not the most vital. I think it would be fantastic if everybody could vote with no hassle; if all the votes were counted and tabulated correctly, I would call that double-fantastic. But it would be of no value whatsoever if We The People didn't know enough of the current state --- and recent history --- of our own country to know who to vote for, and who to vote against!
I'm not saying "run down the 9/11 conspirators if it's the last and only thing you do". I am saying "Hey! Look at this!! It's pretty weird, and it's not like anything they're telling you in the big media..."
Big Dan: I love your enthusiasm and I agree with you most of the time but I would be a lot happier if you'd stick to the issue when somebody comes along who disagrees with you (or me) (or both). People can have different opinions and not necessarily be enemies --- we (you and I personally) can easily disagree about all kinds of things without either of us listening to Limbaugh or Hannity or anything like that. I don't need to be protected from a little dissent now and again and neither do you. I give you 10 out of 10 for loyalty, though!
Lots of good comments from other people and I wish I could name you all and reply to your thoughts too. But the time she fly.
Thanks again to all: pro and con. It's nice to hear from all of you.
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 7:37 am PT...
Has anyone ever interviewed the video camera users who took the video of the towers being hit by the airplanes? I've never seen anyone interviewed about their footage.
COMMENT #70 [Permalink]
Licensed Structural Engineer
said on 9/12/2006 @ 8:52 am PT...
Quoting Winter Patriot, "that's one of the box girders you're talking about, right? I haven't seen the steel in person and I'm not a specialist by any means. But the steel in this instance appears to have been cut (i.e. not softened, bent, buckled, and/or snapped) Do you agree with me on this?"
Yes it does appear to be a box girder I'm talking about. I've seen the photo before and I have assumed (and still do assume, only because it's SO obvious) that the obvious cut was made by a cutting torch as part of the rescue effort. That's certainly not a failure that could have resulted from a gravity driven collapse. That girder was cut; the questions that arise are
1) whether the cutting happened before, during or after the collapse; and
2) what made the cut - a torch or a "cutting charge"?
To me, the photo alone cannot answer those questions. IMO a torch should have made a much cleaner cut, but maybe it was done in a hurry and hence so sloppily? If it wasn't cut as part of the rescue effort, obviously this becomes a smoking gun & those molten drips should have been analyzed during a throrough investigation.
If this was an actual gravity driven collapse, the rest of that girder should have an important story to tell. [are connections to the column in tact? was there buckling in multiple planes and multiple locations? was the column sheared off by other forces resulting from the collapse (or explosion)?] Where is the rest of that girder? What is the story that girder tells and why hasn't NIST shared that story with the rest of us? SURELY THERE MUST BE PHOTOS TO DOCUMENT THE FAILURES OF THESE MASSIVE COLUMNS?
...waves hands to part the haze of physics created by NIST and asks what every layperson can ask... WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS OF THE FAILED CORE COLUMNS?
COMMENT #71 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 11:33 am PT...
Truth Seeker - until we clear up the past we cannot go forward. Learn from mistakes...the public mistakes are saying, forget it just work on another problem. However, vote fraud, 9/11, JFK, Bobby we have let too much go without demanding ACCOUNTABILITY.
Once criminals find out how easy it is to get people to forget, or think "oh it is too hard to get the truth." they have it made in the shade.
When do we say NO MORE, NO MORE LIES, NO MORE CORRUPTNESS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. Maybe then we can become the society we can be.
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 11:38 am PT...
This is the most humorous thing I've seen in a long time - Too bad it's not the truth!
An Alternate 9/11 History
Thanks to Raw Story and Newsweek
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 11:41 am PT...
Mr. LSE: That's a good point: the box girders could have been cut by a torch! I never even thought of that! what a dolt!! but I think the reason why I never thought of it is because I have read so much about hauling the steel away but I've never read anything about cutting the steel into "short" pieces in order to do so. Not that this proves anything. ;-(
Mr. Cannon: As you can see I am not an expert nor am I wedded to anything except possibly curiosity. Now that I know the steel in this picture could have been cut with a torch, I really don't need to know your opinion as to how that steel could have been cut. You can still tell me your view if you like, though
But I'm still confused about Fetzer and the Z film so I would appreciate if you share more of what you know about that ... I know this isn't the ideal place for that discussion but then again where would be better?
Thanks again, guys. Gals too.
COMMENT #74 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 9/12/2006 @ 1:10 pm PT...
To all of the staff at Brad Blog. . . . . Thank You for all the great work you do ! ! !
COMMENT #75 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 2:55 pm PT...
Did anyone contributing to this thread see the recent Nova program on PBS about the WTC collapse? I saw part of it and slept through a good portion (nap time for me). However, what I saw and heard of it I thought was well researched and presented.
Initially, the study put out the first year after the collapse had claimed that the joists had not been rigidly attached to their bearing points and had slipped, contributing to the "pancaking" of the floors (in addition to column failure). However, a more recent study refuted that conclusion, and attributed the collapse to a buckling of the columns alone (according to the Nova program), which is what I have thought was likely all along.
What many people don't appreciate is that metals very readily conduct heat, and steel requires very little application of heat to lose much of its strength and fail. It does not need to be brought anywhere close to "melting point." Just 800 to 1100 degrees Fahrenheit is enough to lead to failure. As an intern architect years ago I was witness to the results of a restaurant fire. Although just a one story structure, the open web steel joists failed and caused the roof to collapse because the restaurant owner had taken short cuts, and bribed some building officials when the structure was built. The fire stop materials that should have resisted penetration of the fire and hot gases from the kitchen were not installed and the ceiling plenum provided an excellent chimney for conduction of the hot gases from the kitchen to the outside air, thus exposing the steel joists over the dining area to the heat from the fire. Fortunately, no one was killed or hurt in the fire. However, the restaurant owner was surprised to see how quickly a kitchen fire caused a collapse of the roof over the dining area. He vowed never to bribe officials again to circumvent building code requirements.
I have more to write about this, but will have to postpone until later.
COMMENT #76 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 3:00 pm PT...
Yep, and steel with thermate taped to it at regular intervals leads to failure even more quickly. The WTC steel cores would have to have been weakened by heat for days, not minutes, to fail like that. Get a clue. PBS is only marginally more reliable than ABC.
COMMENT #77 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 3:31 pm PT...
WP, and others, first let me make one point. If you want to continue to compare the JFK assassination conotroversy to the 911 morass, you had better explain the fact that none of the major JFK researchers (except for Marrs and Fetzer) have embraced the CD/911 theories. Also, the original JFK theorists were a much classier bunch. I'll take Bertrand Russell over the Spotlight crowd any day of the week.
Second, let's talk the Z film if you like.
You have proven yourself a terrible researcher --- misrepresenting your sources, and consulting only those sources which buttress your biases. I no longer have Lifton's book to hand, but I am pretty sure he did not talk about Fetzer-like alterations. I haven't read the chapter Lifton provided for Fetzer's book, but I understand tht he is now saying some pretty crazy stuff. He is wrong, and not for the first time. He said soem REALLY crazy stuff when he first entered the field.
"The CIA had the Zapruder film from Friday night Novenber 22nd until Sunday the 24th"? Bullshit.
You know NOTHING about the origins of the film. There were three copies made in Dallas. There was never any opportunity for any one party (not even Zapruder) to possess all three copies (plus the master) for the requisite length of time. See Tink Thompson's piece here:
Note that the documentation makes clear that the master remained in Zapruder's possession. Zapruder testified under oath the the copy shown at the Garrison trail matched exactly his own.
There were other films that day, and certainly no-one has argued that the the chain of possession allows for, say, the Nix film to be altered in the same way.
Clint Bradford writes: "There is no document, no legitimate witness, direct nor indirect credible source that can place the Zapruder film in the hands of the CIA on November 22 or the following two days."
The technology of the 1960s simply did not allow for the kind of changes Fetzer has described! The kind of work he proposes is far beyond what you see onscreen in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (where the matte lines are pretty jumpy by today's standards). The "alterationists" have proposed that the figures were separated from the background, which was enlarged 130%!!! And they say that this was done using traditional animation techniques --- in one day! Good lord. I do Photoshop for a living, and lemme tell ya --- even TODAY such a thing would be difficult to do without "tells."
There are two obvious splices in the LIFE copy of the film, and they ARE suspicious. (Those aren't the alterations Fetzer has proposed.) A few frames were torn out in a rough and blatant way. If someone possessed the technology for the sort of undetectable alterations Fetzer proposes, then why yank out those frames using the brute force approach, leaving glaring scars? (When I asked that of David Mantik years ago, he mumbled something incomprehensible along the lines of "That's how clever these guys are.")
If I recall correctly what Dr. Mantik told me (he was working with Fetzer at the time), he averred that, among other alterations, every other frame was cut out of the film. If you know anything about photography --- which those guys DON'T --- you'd know that the depth of field would be completely different.
And the motion of the Z film would differ from all other films made that day.
If they had computerized photo editing in 1963, why not come up with a pseudo-film that fit the WC thesis better? Why does the film show the head flying "back, and to the left"? Why not send Jack's head flying forward? Why did they need to print the frames out of sequence in Life and the WC volumes?
Why did the government refuse to show the film to the public? Why go to the trouble of altering the evidence using 21st century technology and then HIDING their work?
The world's foremost authority on 8mm film has seen no sign of alteration:
And if you want to look at the controversy as a whole, go here:
But why bother giving the links? You know that you should have looked that stuff up already. You can use Google as well as I. If you want me to do your homework for you, I will require you to A) be female and B) sleep with me.
As you know, I have an ongoing series over at my own site on the 911 scientific controversies. I'll be dealing with various issues one by one. If you want to know what I think, check out those posts. I'll be giving Brad a piece of my mind soon enough. I hope the election fraud coverage won't be tainted by the fact that this blog has turned into an irresponsible "bombs-in-the-buildings" conspiracy-fest.
COMMENT #78 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 3:52 pm PT...
I wonder if you have an idea about what a politically-astute chicken hawk you look like here. Among other things, there is NOTHING irresponsible about the postulation of bombs in the buildings, whereas there is a great deal irresponsible about the way you frame it.
If there was something crucial in Captain Deshore's transcript that I missed, I would like you to step back to the matter at hand and state it, rather than continue in this inflated way. Pull yourself together.
COMMENT #79 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 5:17 pm PT...
Agent99: Thanks for calling me poltically astute. "Chicken hawk"? Are you calling me a pedophile or pro war? Both implications are false and at least one is actionable. Care to sign your real name and address to that, bub?
Bombs in the buildings IS irresponsible. It's a meme that right-wingers seeded on the left --- intentionally, I think. Virtually all the CD arguments have an origin on the right-wing fringe, as I discuss on my blog. But now the falshood has been embraced by many progressives (not the leading ones, thank god) who operate under the theory that "Anything that makes Bush looks bad must be OK."
I've said it before: The moment any major Democratic pol embraces the CD theory, there will be an expose on a major network or PBS or wherever. (And there will also be books and magazine articles --- the full-court press.) Said expose will juxtapose footage of a REAL controlled demoltion with what happened on 911. The nation will see that the two things look utterly dissimilar.
Then the program need only call in a few experts who will explain why there were lots of potential sources for secondary explosions....and then the program need only point out that not a single expert in the field of controlled demolitions endorses the CD theory (not ONE, the entire world!)...
And once such a show airs --- boom, game over.
Every CD enthusiast in this country will receive a first-class egg facial (except for the die-hards, who would rather have all their teeth pulled than admit that they could ever have been wrong about anything).
One does not need much imagination to guess what Hannity and Rush would do the the day after such a program airs: "Those left-wing gonzo conspiracy theorists tried to get this country to believe pseudo-scientific garbage...!"
That's the sequence of events I am trying to prevent.
By the way, you refuse to look at the CD comparison footage in "Screw Loose Change." As a previous generation used to joke: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!"
My problem with WP's handling of the Deshore quote is one of emphasis. Boldface the sections where she admits that she did not know the first building had gone down, and suddenly her words read very differently.
COMMENT #80 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 5:43 pm PT...
"Politically astute" was no compliment. "Chicken hawk" referred to your hawkish insults that lead away from the real battle to the lesser battle of wits. I pulled the quotes from the transcripts and had a lot to do with what was emphasized. In fact, rereading Captain Deshore's account, I found I missed a reference to a burning car she had thought was fire coming out of a subway as the first collapse was beginning to happen. That is another item that points to the use of the planes as fuses for the thermate (military grade thermite) that destroyed the core steel columns in such short order. Whether or not Captain Deshore realized the building had collapsed is immaterial to her observations before it, and during it, and after it. Your position seems weak-minded --- for all the toughness of its presentation --- to me. You just keep seeming angry that whippersnappers could go in and make such a compelling movie, that anyone out there could have a stronger case, including well-respected physicists. You seem angry no one is paying enough attention to your so-called debunking. Not to worry! Anyone determined not to think the unthinkable, or be seen propounding it, will be glad to hear it. Be patient. Vacation time is winding up. People will be back on the net in droves.
And, no, I would not be glad to give you my real name for fear you might start trying to do my research for me.
COMMENT #81 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 6:03 pm PT...
Agent 99: What exactly are YOUR credentials to speak with such authority on such a technical topic? Professionals can have honest disagreements on technical issues like this, but it is different when someone with little or no such technical knowledge makes such pronouncements.
COMMENT #82 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 6:09 pm PT...
Heed or do not heed my words. Period.
COMMENT #83 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 6:42 pm PT...
The question I ask the bloggers is: "Other than sharing sharing comments and links with other bloggers, what have you done to demand the truth about 9/11? I have not heard of any candidates running on that promise. Some say they will get us out of Iraq and some say they will impeach the imcompetents. I like those candidates. I would work for them. But should I demand that they pin 9/11 on some domestic conspirators. I think not. I think I would be doing the same thing 40 years from now.
Meanwhile, I am still looking for a better name. Agent99 has suggested two and I have been thinking about "Barbara Feldon". Nobody is using that name. Or maybe not.
COMMENT #84 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 7:00 pm PT...
Let me say this...when I first made my comments, I was not sure Mr. Cannon was from that website Cannonfire. Well, he is, and I've previously read articles and in fact have his website bookmarked. And he's written some excellent articles.
That said, I stand by what I said. I think Cannon is wrong (about this).
Cannon, what is your official stance in one simple sentence:
1. You believe the government's story
2. You do not believe the government's story?
After putting 2 and 2 together, and realizing this is the guy from Cannonfire, I am shocked on his view of 9/11. I went to his site and he leads of with discreditting Bollyn, et al, by throwing up the "anti-semitism" and "whacko conspiracy theorists" cheap shots, and that's leading off, which totally discredits his view (in my opinion). And mentioning some other articles Bollyn wrote, as if we all agree they were "crazy" articles, when in fact we may agree with them.
I subscribe to American Free Press, and I am well aware of the background Cannon states about them, as if that's news that discredits the facts they've dug up. I am aware that some call AFP "anti-semetic". At first, I thought they were. Now, I don't.
Mr. Cannon, you then also must believe that the INN Report and Democracy NOW! are anti-semetic, because they report from the "victim's" point of view, the Palestinians. The corporate-controlled MSM NEVER reports from their point of view, only the Israeli's point of view. And if you stretch my logic, you must also be against LINK-TV and FSTV for airing the INN Report and Democracy NOW! and Liberty News. And you must not like Brad Blog letting people like me, make comments that I do. Thanks, Brad!
We all love our families. Theoretically, if they built a replica of the WTC, all 3 buildings including WTC-7, and they rammed a jet into each one of them, would you bet your families' lives that they would all 3, even the one not hit by a plane, fall freefall perfectly in their own footprints demolition style in record time after being hit? I would bet my families' lives that THEY WOULD NOT, and I bet YOU WOULD, TOO! Since it's impossible.
Do you also think the Israeli's are starving to death and depriving water from the Palestinians in the
Gaza Strip? Not reported on, btw? Because it's "anti-semetic" if we report that?
Did Christopher Bollyn "make up" being tasered by government agents? He says this was ordered by Homeland Security. Wake up, before it happens to all of us!
The JFK "conspiracies"? Who believes the "one bullet theory"? Once again, promoted by politicians, just like our government's 9/11 story.
Again, I have one question for you Mr. Cannon: Do you believe the government's story or not?
That being said, I do have respect for Cannonfire, and I've read some very very good articles there, and I have the site bookmarked. I actually thought Joseph Cannon was a troll at first, because I wouldn't expect this opinion from him, after reading previous articles on Cannonfire, that is why I thought he was a troll at first. Which doesn't say much for his opinion on this, if I thought someone I held in high regard was a troll, not knowing who he was. Well, I guess you can say, I wrote above what I really thought, then! No disrespect intended, but I am truely shocked on your opinion on this.
I think there is a populist movement against this all too powerful government, both left and right coming together, against these crooks in power, and they are scared of it. That's how much they are hated. AFP is known to be conservative.
As far as those who say the Holocaust didn't happen, I don't know enough to comment on it. But I do know this: People are being thrown in jail for expressing this opinion, and THAT IS WRONG! Even people who disagree with them, are saying it's wrong to throw them in jail just for expressing an opinion or writing a book. Why are people thrown in jail, or why are people called "anti-semetic", who say anything negative against Israel??? That tell me a lot! There's a lot of people who called us "unPatriotic" for being against the Iraq War, etc... That is a "flag" against these people, and you lead off your article with "Zeig Heil" about Bollyn, which is irrelevant to the evidence.
I would also like to point out that, besides Brad, in my personal experience I have found Christopher Bollyn to be the #2 most prolific reporter on electronic vote machine fraud (not counting Bev Harris, who's in a class all by herself).
So, Mr. Cannon, no disrespect intended, but I believe you are wrong, and please answer whether you believe the government's story.
I believe that they, like others who report things on Israel that the Israeli lobby and others in our government, you know, Republicans and Democrats, don't want reported, are the object of the #1 "just shut up", which is the "anti-semetic" card.
COMMENT #85 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 7:04 pm PT...
...and please let me point out, that I am not a writer like you guys, I don't have a blog, etc... I'm just some guy who has a regular job where I don't concentrate on these things all day, I don't use my time all day to hone my writing skills (I wish I did have a job like that). I don't have the time or the means I wish I had to be more active in causes I believe in, I pray that others who do, do a good job. I'm just some average guy, but I'm not stupid.
COMMENT #86 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 7:11 pm PT...
Why did Guiliani, a former lawyer, have all the steel carted of and melted at the expense of 70% of the workers' lung health, and not treat it as a crime scene to be examined? I mean there's a million questions, and why are they not answering them? Why is rightwing talk radio Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly in lockstep with their talking points praising the ABC propoganda special??? What's going on??? Why does Democracy NOW! news, the INN Report, and Liberty news report on things the corporate MSM is suppressing???
COMMENT #87 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 7:15 pm PT...
Why did CBS pull the Reagan mini-series, and ABC put out the 9/11 propoganda piece? Why did Disney/ABC refuse to distribute Farenheit 9/11, but air this neo-con propoganda? Why wasn't Farenheit 9/11 rammed down our throats on corporate TV, but this propoganda one was???
COMMENT #88 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 7:47 pm PT...
"Their scientific evidence is wrong, because they hate the Jews".
COMMENT #89 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 9:44 pm PT...
For Truth Seeker re: #83 here's one candidate running on a platform that includes investigating 9/11; he won his primary in Florida last week, too: Robert Bowman.
COMMENT #90 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 10:09 pm PT...
The Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission, responsible for the "official" story and thus most of the discourse that has taken place, doesn't find anything wrong in working with extreme right wingers to produce a quasi-propagandistic work of fiction that distorts the record and airing it commercial free, interrupted only by a political speech by George Bush, on 9/11. This man does not operate in the same reality as the rest of us. He also admits to not asking tough questions of public officials, and not pursuing things when blatantly lied to. I think the least we can all agree to is that another commission must be formed with subpoena power and tasked with exposing the whitewash and getting the information we all need.
COMMENT #91 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 10:16 pm PT...
Wow, you guys have brought up some good arguments.
First of all, I have to step up and defend Mr. Cannon. So he doesn't buy into the controlled demolition theory. A lot of people still don't. That's fine. But read his blog. Cannon was the guy (I believe) who first broadcast that "hijacker" Mohammed Atta was on Jack Abramoff's Sun Cruz gambling boat 5 days before 9-11.
That's a Muslim terrorist... about a Republican money launderer's party ship... on 9/6/01.
Mr. Cannon has done some excellent reporting, and whether or not he buys into to CD theory, he is a truth seeker.
I can also say that on the other hand, common sense tells you that if you look at the pattern of deceit, fraud and theft from the Bush regime from Day one, and then look at the PNAC manifesto, that's all the evidence any rational person needs to come to the conclusion that Cheney & crew did 9-11. The details we may never know, since all the evidence was deliberately destroyed. Controlled demolition or not, the Bush regime was behind it.
Let's not eat our own while we all search for the truth , mm-kay?
COMMENT #92 [Permalink]
Licensed Structural Engineer
said on 9/12/2006 @ 10:20 pm PT...
Quoting the honorable Mr Cannon; "Bombs in the buildings IS irresponsible. It's a meme that right-wingers seeded on the left"
I didn't need a right winger to seed the idea in my mind that something wasn't right with the "official version". I worked as a structural steel engineer for years. Before he even said it, I agreed on 9/11/01 with the TV announcer who stated there must have been tons of explosives on site to cause such collapses, and I haven't yet seen anything that positively convinces me otherwise.
I waited for the investigation. We all know what happened with that; destruction of the evidence, stonewalling, lack of investigative questioning, and recently, admitted coverups by the commission.
Spend the time to watch Press for Truth if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Maybe you know more than I do about structural failures. But I know enough to understand that reports like NIST's seem 100% solid to the layperson, but are in fact very speculative. Any observant person can see how they've changed their conclusions over time. And at all times, the debunkers accept the current conclusion as proof. Proof that I, who know more about structural failures than 99% of the population, am a "kook" for having lingering questions that in fact if you dig deep and read between the lines, haven't really been answered by NIST or any other professional engineering firm. In fact some engineers are now acknowledging the demolition theory in their reports, against what I would imagine must be significant pressure to ignore such "kookiness":
Bazant and Verdure also identify a dissenting view, which is held by "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives". The total progressive collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 have not been modelled with the intention of either refuting or proving the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Mr. Cannon, I've always agreed that the towers didn't look like standard controlled demolitions, but I believe a true "collapse" should have in fact looked much more like a controlled demolition than what we all saw.
What does a collapse look like? Do you have any videos of those so we can compare? Do collapses always appear so outwardly explosive?
As the building collapsed down the path of MOST resistance, material was ejected in every direction. We're told it was the only way it could fall, the evidence being the fact that it did fall that way. BULL.SHIT.
The attack dogs are barking on all sides. But I know what I know, and without seeing a physical recreation, I will continue to call bullshit on all the NIST, Popular Mechanic, Nova, Scientific American foregone conclusions. What is it Ghandi said, 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.' I think 911 truth is just about to stage 2 now. The macho bully smartguy laughter is getting louder and louder and the gatekeepers are falling over themselves to call the whole lot crazy. But no one's really answering the questions.
Since the physical evidence has been mostly destroyed, I think that only a scale model or similar construction destruction could prove to everyone for sure, one way or the other, how these things should look. I hope at some point it becomes worth it to someone that can afford to do it.
COMMENT #93 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 10:51 pm PT...
I would note that an absence of controlled demolition does not in any way rule out the possibility of an inside job.
COMMENT #94 [Permalink]
said on 9/12/2006 @ 11:06 pm PT...
Yes, "controlled demolition" is such a civilized term for it, and maybe even misleading! How about "planned obliteration"? I wish you were right, bvac, about the least we could all agree on, but we never really got everybody to agree on the first one, and the chances of getting their agreement now on a real one are still more remote.
COMMENT #95 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 12:06 am PT...
In case you haven't already seen it, 9/11: Press for Truth, beside being an excellent documentary, really addresses this question of agreement about a new independent investigation.
Google Video link
Maybe if people spent some time reading the transcripts of the first responders' testimony, really reading them, we could unite enough to get this kind of sensible, all-American satisfaction....
COMMENT #96 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 12:30 am PT...
Joseph Cannon wrote: the program need only point out that not a single expert in the field of controlled demolitions endorses the CD theory (not ONE, the entire world!)…
but 911blogger wrote: they ask demolition expert Danny Jowenko (who has his own demolition firm and reportedly has been active in this business for 27 years) to comment on videos of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. His response to the WTC 7 video: "This is controlled demolition".
OK - not TWO in the whole world... !
COMMENT #97 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 2:05 am PT...
The suspension of Steven Jones here has caused quite an uproar. People are running to his defense. BYU university has always reserved the right to discipline staff for coming out against the church, but they don't know exactly what to do in this case because, after all, Prof. Jones has the right to say whatever he wants on his own time.
I find it quite interesting that organizations, (Cannonfire, Counterpoint), that have spent years reporting on the UNBELEIVABLE secrecy, fraud, widespread, (to say the least), corruption, inhumanity, you-name-it, of the Bush administration can just throw that "conspiracy nutcase" argument out at us because we question the events involving 9-11!
We've all seen hundreds of people, saying nothing or outright lying about the simplest concepts involving concerns about our voting machines over and over and over. We also went through a completely ludicrous impeachment.
If I'm proven to be crazy to imagine that there could be something fishy going on, with some REAL GOOD evidence on many fronts to back it up, well then so be it. If we're going to prove that our own government is a real and present danger to us, we had better find out NOW! Not after they seal the evidence and everybody is dead!
If Bush wants us to believe anything, he's going to have to appoint people with NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. I'll be the first one to say I was wrong and try to get on with some kind of normal life despite a hundred years of Arab and world payback!
COMMENT #98 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 2:26 am PT...
Hope you're right about Disney, however I wish they would just come out and tell us the truth instead of a scheme.
That was a great show on Democracy Now with Popular Mechanics and Loose Change. I thought that guy was going to pop a vein when he was compared to a holocaust denier.
COMMENT #99 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 6:42 am PT...
I've been clicking on Cannonfire daily for ever so long, and to tell you the truth, I'm terribly disappointed in Joseph, and, sad to say, it rally makes me think something fishy is going on, because I know he's no dummy. There is a poweful link between the 9/11 CD mess and election fraud: in both cases the odds against the official story are about equally astronomical. Cui bono, in both cases???
COMMENT #100 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 9:04 am PT...
Czargorn - I agree with you...these posts from Joseph Cannon do not sound like his blog. I admit I have not checked in lately, however, he used to be more open minded. Whats up? Is it really Joseph Cannon or is someone using his signature?
COMMENT #101 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 10:19 am PT...
It is coming out now that firemen, clean up workers are suffering from cancers and respiratory problems resulting from high radiation levels, such as being close to nuclear blasts.
So how does airline fuel produce radiation high levels?
Just one more question that needs answers.
COMMENT #102 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 11:42 am PT...
Gee, TexasLady, I hadn't heard about radiation, but for sure the brave rescue personnel have hurting respiratory systems. I'm sure the Joseph Cannon here is one and the same you and I had come to love and admire over at Cannonfire, as I've seen the same mindless diatribe at his site (I hope they didn't take him down and take over his site). In any case, commercial airliners ordinarily carry huge slugs of depelted uranium in their tail sections for ballast, so that could account for some radiation poisoning, I suppose... ITMFA!!!
COMMENT #103 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 11:49 am PT...
czaragorn - google wayne madsen and find wayne madsen family - good information with verifiable sources. This re: cancers from radiation among workers in NY. 9/13
Madsen also has a count of laptops with confidential information stolen since last year...was over 177 a month or more ago. You would have to look in August blogs. Anyway,so much information just 'happens' to get stolen??? Would be ever so handy to have a central data collection point.
COMMENT #104 [Permalink]
Dr Ed from Kansas
said on 9/13/2006 @ 12:47 pm PT...
The sophistry demonstrated in many of the foregoing arguements is incredible! As a scientist, a researcher, a professor, and a physician, I have great respect for the scientific method: the refining spiral of observation, hypothesis, and experiment. Unfortunately, the emotional content in the 911 controversy makes it impossible for many to examine these events dispassionately. Recently I wrote to my congressman regarding my 911 misgivings. His reply was most dismissive, and I responded to him with the following:
Dear Congressman Moore:
I am disappointed, sir, with your response to my concerns regarding the events of September 11, 2001. I am a scientist, Mr. Moore, and I am wholly unconcerned with any of those conspiracy theories, or with the so-called debunking you forwarded to me. I am particularly uninterested in the Popular Mechanics piece that makes a complete mockery of mathematics, physics, and the scientific method. I hope that in the future you will avoid such sophisms in your communications with me.
I make one simple assertion to you. There was insufficient potential energy due to gravity to account for the explosive destruction of the towers. I offer here one of many simple proofs of that assertion.
Consider that each tower had 110 floors above ground level of 4” thick lightweight concrete – approximately 4,760,000 square feet of concrete slab. Following destruction of the towers there were no large fragments of concrete remaining. Most of it was pulverized to particles less than 100 microns in diameter, producing a pyroclastic cloud of caustic (pH12.1 - same as drain cleaner) fine dust that has since been implicated in serious respiratory diseases in perhaps 70% of the local residents and the first and early responders to the WTC scene.
An alert and critical observer cannot look at these photographs, showing a massive ejection of broken steel and pulverized debris, and not wonder at the monumental amount of energy in play. How much of that energy was required just to crush these 4.76 million square feet of concrete slab? As it happens, prior to attending medical school, I was for 10 years a general contractor, specializing in concrete construction. Consequently, I have some familiarity with calculations of this nature, and I shall go over them with you here.
The concrete used on the WTC floors should have developed a compressive strength of at least 2000, and more likely 2500 pounds per square inch (psi) at 28 days of curing. Although concrete continues to develop strength after that time, we’ll disregard that and use the low number – 2000 psi. Understand that 2000 psi is an immense force: 1 ton per square inch - 144 tons per square foot! For the whole building the required force would be more than 685 millions tons (685,301,760 tons = 6.10E+12 N - Newtons!
Can gravity alone provide this amount of force? Both FEMA and NIST, and the long-ago discredited Popular Mechanics piece you sent me, call the tower destruction a gravity driven collapse, but none provides any calculations of the energetics. Even high school chemistry and physics teaches the necessity of accounting for all of the energy in any reaction – how much energy was required versus how much was available to produce what was observed. Once again a simple calculation can be made. Each tower is said to contain 96,000 tons of steel – lets call it 100,000 tons. The concrete floors add 59,000 cubic yards of concrete - another 90,000 tons. For everything else we can use the maximum floor loading capacity of 100 lbs per square foot – 240,000 tons, a gross overestimate – bringing the estimated total building mass to 430,000 tons (3.904E+08 kg).
All that is left is to do the math. Converting to metric, setting the tower height to 415m (1350 ft) and distributing the height (h) and mass (m) among 110 floors, the total potential energy from gravity, Ug, of the building is the integral of Ug(i) =mg·h(i) (where mass of each floor m=3.52E+06 kg, gravity g=9.8m/sec2)and the height hi= i·[415/110]m; i=1,2,3.....110)is: = 7.94E+11 Joules
The total thus derived, 7.94E+11 J, is about one-tenth of the energy required to impart the necessary 6.10E+12 N of force just to crush the concrete, not to mention the complete destruction of the structural steel frame and core, and all of the building contents. Without the input of significant additional energy, some orders of magnitude greater than the total potential energy of the tower, the destruction observed is physically beyond the realm of possibility.
Having demonstrated insufficient energy to crush the concrete, shall we confront the problem of the lateral vector of the debris ejected from the towers as they disintegrated? As you know, Mr. Moore, gravity is a law of nature. Here on earth, the gravity vector points in one and only one direction: toward the center of the earth. How, then did gravity eject the majority of each towers 430,000 tons of debris away from the building’s footprint for distances up to 500 feet? This is clearly visible in the photograph linked above and here where additional explosions have occurred well removed from the purported collapse initiation site around the 78th – 80th floor. And the concrete, now converted to a pyroclastic cloud is flowing away from the towers as seen here approximately 30 seconds after WTC1 "collapsed." A cloud of 90,000 tons of concrete!
And how did the collapse result in a crater at ground zero as seen in these photographs? Why was there not a heaping pile of rubble as was seen in the case of a genuine building collapse (Kobe earthquake) pictured here?
Now, Mr. Moore, I have called upon you to look at this on several occasions and you have been largely unresponsive. Sending my inquiry on to NIST, the agency that has so botched and covered up this investigation, and who now refuses to publicly debate its fraudulent findings with peers in the scientific community, is a totally empty gesture on your part. Let me make this emphatically clear, I am not concerned with speculations about who might have placed explosives in these buildings, or why. That is up to a criminal or, preferably, congressional investigation; i.e. your job. I am concerned only with the observable and scientifically provable reality that the combination of jetliner impact damage, hydrocarbon fires, and gravity were physically insufficient to produce the observed damage, and that FEMA and NIST are both presenting fraudulent science and lying to the American people for reasons best uncovered by you.
Since you saw fit to send me the “party line” response to my query, I offer you the response of one of my collegues to NIST’s most recent FAQ’s. Please take the time to read through it as it is clear that you currently lack sufficient familiarity with the subject for any meaningful opinion on the science.
COMMENT #105 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 2:27 pm PT...
Dr. Ed: Thank you for your excellent contribution.
[ PS --- So thankful that I fixed that link for you. ]
COMMENT #106 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 4:10 pm PT...
Dr Ed from Kansas:
Sorry wrong word.
COMMENT #107 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 8:02 pm PT...
Thanks to Dr. Ed from Kansas for that detailed analysis. To me it makes more sense than the analyses I've read that purport to prove the opposite.
Language is so important! Whoever frames the question usually wins the debate ... and IMO we are all making a big mistake every time we say "the towers collapsed" ... because they did NOT collapse: they disintegrated! I rarely see that distinction made and I believe it's an important one. Gravity can make a building collapse, as we have seen many times. But I don't think we've ever seen gravity make a building disintegrate!
MVHO only, as always.
COMMENT #108 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 8:13 pm PT...
See "The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts" in The Nation (9/25/06).
COMMENT #109 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 8:18 pm PT...
... or else spend your time doing something useful!
COMMENT #110 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 8:39 pm PT...
I know Cockburn. A wonder he stopped dropping names long enough to mention us.... Useful is better.
COMMENT #111 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 8:45 pm PT...
... or is that name dropping!?!
COMMENT #112 [Permalink]
said on 9/13/2006 @ 9:57 pm PT...
Dr Ed from Kansas #104
Most excellent! Thanks for putting in perspective what I have always questioned - How did the the buildings turn to dust and What propelled those steel beam sections not only outward, but upward in some of the films I've seen.
COMMENT #113 [Permalink]
said on 9/14/2006 @ 2:43 am PT...
Alexander Cockburn who did the Nation article is a Co-Editor from "Counterpunch". I find him to be a NUTCASE! The local radio interviewer here asked him why Paine Stewart's, (golfer who's private plane went off course and crashed), plane was met instantly with F-16's while 4 commercial airlines were not.
I could understand if he had said that Cheney had put himseld in charge of such things, and neglected to carry out this important national security proceedure, but I guess Mr. Cockburn hasn't studied this issue enough to have made that observation. So why is "The Nation" giving him a forum.
So, I ask again! Why are all of these publications that have been keeping us informed of the unbelievable crimes of this corrupt administration, calling us nutcases for asking Bush to appoint credible people, without conflicts of interest to do a decent investigation into this stunning national security breakdown.
Ooo, I better go, I think I just saw a flying saucer!
COMMENT #114 [Permalink]
said on 9/14/2006 @ 1:33 pm PT...
Larry Bergan #113 commented:
"....Bush to appoint credible people, without conflicts of interest...."
I don't believe he knows any! Then again why would any want to associate themselves with him?
Larry - ya better get some sleep or you'll be seeing more than just flying saucers.
COMMENT #115 [Permalink]
said on 9/20/2006 @ 10:18 am PT...
here's another clue for you all,
the walrus is Paul