Former Bush Administration Official: 9/11 was an Inside Job

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Kevin Barrett: Media hide truth: 9/11 was inside job

Published: May 12, 2006

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=83698&ntpid=1

Last Saturday, former Bush administration official Morgan Reynolds drew an enthusiastic capacity crowd to the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium. It is probably the first time in Historical Society history that a political talk has drawn a full house on a Saturday afternoon at the beginning of final exams.

Reynolds, the former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the ex-top economist for George W. Bush's Labor Department, charged the Bush administration with gross malfeasance, and proposed the prosecution of top administration officials.

Normally, if a prestigious UW alumnus and ex-Bush administration official were to come to the Wisconsin Historical Society to spill the beans about a Bush administration scandal, it would make the news. The local TV stations would cover it, and it would merit front page headlines in The Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal.

Reynolds' indictment of the administration he worked for was a stunning, life-changing event for many of those who witnessed it. As the event's organizer, I have received dozens of e-mails about it from people who were deeply affected.

Despite the prestigious speaker and venue, and the gravity of the charges aired, for most Americans indeed most Madisonians the event never happened. Why? Because it was censored, subjected to a total media blackout. Not a word in the State Journal. Not a word in The Capital Times. Not a word on the local TV news. Not a word on local radio news. And, of course, not a word in the national media.

Why the blackout? Because Reynolds violated the ultimate U.S. media taboo. He charges the Bush administration with orchestrating the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for launching a preplanned "long war" in the Middle East, rolling back our civil liberties, and massively increasing military spending.

When a former Bush administration insider makes such charges, how can the media ignore them? Is Reynolds a lone crank? Hardly. A long list of prominent Americans have spoken out for 9/11 truth: Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Sen. Barbara Boxer, former head of the Star Wars program Col. Robert Bowman, ex-Reagan administration economics guru Paul Craig Roberts, progressive Jewish author-activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, former CIA official Ray McGovern, author-essayist Gore Vidal, and many other respected names from across the political spectrum have gone on the record for 9/11 truth.

Are the media ignoring all these people, and dozens more like them, because there is no evidence to support their charges? Hardly. Overwhelming evidence, from the obvious air defense stand-down, to the nonprotection of the president in Florida, to the blatant controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7, proves that 9/11 was an inside job. As noted philosopher-theologian and 9/11 revisionist historian David Griffin writes: "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

A growing list of scientists has lined up behind BYU physicist Steven Jones and MIT engineer Jeff King in support of Griffin's position, as evidenced by the growth of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) and Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (physics911.net).

As a Watergate-era graduate of the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism, I was taught that exposing government lies and corruption is the supreme duty of the Fourth Estate. I simply cannot fathom the current situation. I do not understand the 9/11 truth blackout. I wish someone would explain it to me.

It is time to break the 9/11 truth blackout. Please put pressure on your local media through letters to the editor, call-ins to talk radio, and phone calls to local and national journalists.

And come see Peter Phillips, director of the media watchdog group Project Censored, who will lead a strategy session on breaking the blackout at the upcoming international 9/11 truth conference in Chicago: 9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future, to be held June 2-4 at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Chicago-O'Hare Rosemont. Go to http://911revealingthetruth.org for more information.

The event will feature presentations from dozens of 9/11 truth luminaries, from scientists like Steven Jones to intelligence agency whistle-blowers like David Shayler, and promises to be a historic, watershed event. Be there, or resign yourself to a future of endless war, lost liberty, and a craven media that cannot bring itself to breathe a single word of truth.

[Dudeskey]

LA, the whole thing stank of coverup from the get-go. But I have to admit the gubmint is doing a pretty damn good job discrediting anyone that challenges the official story on what happened. In the conspracy theory department, this will go down in the same category as the USS Liberty, JFK, UFO's, etc...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LA, the whole thing stank of coverup from the get-go. But I have to admit the gubmint is doing a pretty damn good job discrediting anyone that challenges the official story on what happened. In the conspracy theory department, this will go down in the same category as the USS Liberty, JFK, UFO's, etc...

Yep.

What's interesting here is that the message is coming from former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the ex-top economist for George W. Bush's Labor Department - not Michael Moore.

[W*GS]

And this is where LABF and his ilk jump off into loony-land.

Oh wait - they were already there - this just proves it.

[defenseman]

I hear "Charlie Sheen" was in the audience up there. This is hilarious...dman

[footstepsfrom#27]

I was asking questions about this thing within 30 days of the event after finding 13 issues of fact that didn't add up and had no reasonable explananation.

In the last 50 years, through DEMS and REPS both...when have we EVER been told the truth about anything?

[DBruleU]

And this is where LABF and his ilk jump off into loony-land.

Oh wait - they were already there - this just proves it.

Truth.

Loony-land doesn't even begin to explain this.

[footstepsfrom#27]

What's interesting here is that the message is coming from former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the ex-top economist for George W. Bush's Labor Department - not Michael Moore.
A friend of mine was once the Systems Network Adminstrator for the NCPA here in Dallas and tells me it was almost impossible to believe the things he came across in his job...stuff that was supposed to be high security information and indicative of major scandal on a wide scale.

[defenseman]

If so, why didn't he act?.....dman

[DBruleU]

What I don't understand is-You guys claim GWB is the dumbest man to walk the face of the earth, the stupidest president we have ever had, ect...yet he somehow pulled of the biggest scandal we have ever seen?

That is what does not add up.

[defenseman]

Interesting take. However, he is certianly not the stupidest we've ever had. I throw jimmy carter in there...dman

[Garcia Bronco]

LA, the whole thing stank of coverup from the get-go. But I have to admit the gubmint is doing a pretty damn good job discrediting anyone that challenges the official story on what happened. In the conspracy theory department, this will go down in the same category as the USS Liberty, JFK, UFO's, etc...


don't forget the Maine.

Let's say is was an inside job....what good could come from exposing it?

[bendog]

It's bogus because to believe it, one has to assume that bush and rove could foretell their ability to manage the media. But it does show, once again, Bushii has the capacity to hire some real nutters.

[Taco John]

Evidence exists for anyone who cares to examine it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness
Once you've seen the video, which presents clear and lucid evidence that secondary charges existed, you are welcome to hear what the boots on the ground said about the secondary charges:
1) Go to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true
and
2) Forward to 39:36 and listen to the firefighters give their accounts of the secondary charges.

Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

[Taco John]

What I don't understand is-You guys claim GWB is the dumbest man to walk the face of the earth, the stupidest president we have ever had, ect...yet he somehow pulled of the biggest scandal we have ever seen?

That is what does not add up.



Who says Bush did it. Bush is nothing more than a corporate trademark figure, like the Pillsbury Doughboy. Bush has no more control or say in the organization that put him in power as the Michelin Man has over corporate decisions.

[bendog]

Who says Bush did it. Bush is nothing more than a corporate trademark figure, like the Pillsbury Doughboy. Bush has no more control or say in the organization that put him in power as the Michelin Man has over corporate decisions.
Well, over the iraq war I agree. Bushii's a willing whore, but that one is brought to via the multi-nationals. Poppy prolly wouldn't have invaded, but he's making billions.

Nevertheless, the saudis flew the planes.

[Taco John]

I'm not as interested in who flew the planes as I am in who planted the secondary charges.

[Rascal]

Lol

[alkemical]

interesting tidbit:

FEMA was in town for a 'drill' for 9/11 - and WTC was closed for maintence the weekend before.....

[Old Dude]

So ... for those who think it was an inside job ... who flew the planes?

1. Nobody. They were remote controlled.
2. Govt. agents, pretending to be Al-Q.
3. Al-Q, which was knowingly working for our govt.
4. Al-Q, which was unknowingly working for our govt.
5. Al-Q, which was doing its own thing, but our govt., instead of stopping them, helped them.

[alkemical]

Well Old Dude,

There are ties to Mohamad Atta & Abramoff via the FLA casino boats - and there are ties to the mossad

[Old Dude]

Well Old Dude,

There are ties to Mohamad Atta & Abramoff via the FLA casino boats - and there are ties to the mossad

Which means what?

[alkemical]

Which means what?


as far as any concrete info i have - if the gov't was not involved, then some people knew - i mean, they claimed they couldn't find those that sold short the stock on 9/11 - remember that Old dude?

[Old Dude]

as far as any concrete info i have - if the gov't was not involved, then some people knew - i mean, they claimed they couldn't find those that sold short the stock on 9/11 - remember that Old dude?

But I'm still trying to figure out what the conspiracy take is on the pilots. It's easy to say they were dupes. But who did they think they were working for, and what was in it for them?

[alkemical]

But I'm still trying to figure out what the conspiracy take is on the pilots. It's easy to say they were dupes. But who did they think they were working for, and what was in it for them?


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

At Least 7 of the 9/11
Hijackers are Still Alive

[Old Dude]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

At Least 7 of the 9/11
Hijackers are Still Alive

So did they parachute off the planes? Or were they never on the planes?

[alkemical]

I don't know know OD

[Hogan11]

I don't buy it at all.....the goverment is simply too incompetent to pull it off. All you have to do is look at the leaks everytime they try to pull off something covert (like the wire taps, for example)...they can't keep anything under wraps at all, let alone something of that magnitude.

I'll pass on all that, thanks anyways.

[Taco John]

I don't buy it at all.....the goverment is simply too incompetent to pull it off. All you have to do is look at the leaks everytime they try to pull off something covert (like the wire taps, for example)...they can't keep anything under wraps at all, let alone something of that magnitude.

I'll pass on all that, thanks anyways.


What is your response to the evidence of secondary charges?

[GonzoLays]

And this is where LABF and his ilk jump off into loony-land.

Oh wait - they were already there - this just proves it.

http://www.strawberrynet.com/images/products/01757684005.jpg

[Hogan11]

What is your response to the evidence of secondary charges?

I'm skeptical on that really....but it's not inconceivable that if they were in there, they may have been placed by AQ beforehand. They did, afterall, case out the both towers several times before 9/11 went down.

What the hell....one crazy conspiracy theory is as good as another when it comes to things like this.

[Taco John]

Given the evidence of secondary charges (see post #14), I don't think anyone can reasonably conclude that they didn't exist. It's rather crystal clear that they did.

The question is, why is there nothing about them in the official report. And if AQ is responsible for them... My God. That's a staggering implication.

[Hogan11]

The question is, why is there nothing about them in the official report. And if AQ is responsible for them... My God. That's a staggering implication.

Didn't you ever see the conviscated video that AQers took of the inside and outside of the WTC? I seen it a couple of times a few years ago...looks like a tourist video. I think they found it in Afghanistan after they went in, although I'm not sure of that and probably couldn't provide a link for the "linkmen" to prove it.

Of course, that may have been planted as well after the fact.....;)

[Taco John]

I never saw it...

[elsid13]

Given the evidence of secondary charges (see post #14), I don't think anyone can reasonably conclude that they didn't exist. It's rather crystal clear that they did.

The question is, why is there nothing about them in the official report. And if AQ is responsible for them... My God. That's a staggering implication.

TJ - You been watching to much "24". In fact all American has. Secondary explosions are common incident when you incite that much highly explosive jet fuel into that environment. Common cause would include exploding building electric generators, to back drafts (super heated air). Conspiracy theory are fun, but rarely true. The sad fact is that we let are guard down, and individuals that hated this country made us pay for it.

[Pendejo]

I never saw it...

Hogan's right in regards to the video AQ supposedly shot of the WTC. I think it was found in one of the caves in Afghanistan. It was broadcast soon thereafter. It had a touristy feel to it, so I'm sure the people shooting it didn't raise any red flags.

Then again if this is an inside job...it would make perfect sense to "find" such a video when you raid AQ's lair.

I for one really hope that all this talk about a government conspiracy is nonsense. If the administration had anything to do with it...geez.

[elsid13]

Hogan's right in regards to the video AQ supposedly shot of the WTC. I think it was found in one of the caves in Afghanistan. It was broadcast soon thereafter. It had a touristy feel to it, so I'm sure the people shooting it didn't raise any red flags.

Then again if this is an inside job...it would make perfect sense to "find" such a video when you raid AQ's lair.

I for one really hope that all this talk about a government conspiracy is nonsense. If the administration had anything to do with it...geez.


People forget that Al Qaeda had been attempting to destroy the WTC before they were successful on 9/11. They had plenty of time to scout and analysis the weakness of the building.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Evidence exists for anyone who cares to examine it:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/Bocawaves/not_this.jpg

People forget that Al Qaeda had been attempting to destroy the WTC before they were successful on 9/11. They had plenty of time to scout and analysis the weakness of the building.
They had absolutely NO clue they would bring down the towers by crashing airplanes into them.

[elsid13]

They had absolutely NO clue they would bring down the towers by crashing airplanes into them.


You are correct they were hoping to cause major damage and got lucky. My thoughts in that post were not clear.

[Taco John]

TJ - You been watching to much "24". In fact all American has. Secondary explosions are common incident when you incite that much highly explosive jet fuel into that environment. Common cause would include exploding building electric generators, to back drafts (super heated air). Conspiracy theory are fun, but rarely true. The sad fact is that we let are guard down, and individuals that hated this country made us pay for it.



I've never seen 24. I don't watch much television at all, to tell you the truth... Mostly NFL when I do. And the Office.

Your jet fuel explination isn't plausible because the jet fuel wasn't contained at that point. And the generators you are speaking of wouldn't generate enough of a blast to bring down a steel structured building, even after the plane had hit it. Evidence seems to indicate that the blasts were timed to go off throughout the building in an orchestrated fasion.

I stand by the conclusion that there were secondary charges. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this claim.

[GonzoLays]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/Bocawaves/not_this.jpg


They had absolutely NO clue they would bring down the towers by crashing airplanes into them.

And you know this how?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I've never seen 24. I don't watch much television at all, to tell you the truth... Mostly NFL when I do. And the Office.

Your jet fuel explination isn't plausible because the jet fuel wasn't contained at that point. And the generators you are speaking of wouldn't generate enough of a blast to bring down a steel structured building, even after the plane had hit it. Evidence seems to indicate that the blasts were timed to go off throughout the building in an orchestrated fasion.

I stand by the conclusion that there were secondary charges. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this claim. I already explained what you think you saw as explosions, do you have short term memory loss?

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=972146&postcount=289

And you know this how? Because none of them had the intelligence, education or training to know that would happen since it had never happened before.

And also bin laden said he was "pleasantly surprised" seeing the towers falling on themselves.

[Taco John]

I already explained what you think you saw as explosions, do you have short term memory loss?

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=972146&postcount=289

Because none of them had the intelligence, education or training to know that would happen since it had never happened before.

And also bin laden said he was "pleasantly surprised" seeing the towers falling on themselves.



No, I pretty much just disregarded it, since you didn't seem to know what you were talking about.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No, I pretty much just disregarded it, since you didn't seem to know what you were talking about.
LOL

What exactly don't I know what I'm talking about?

[DBruleU]

LOL

What exactly don't I know what I'm talking about?

I'm guessing everything he doesn't agree with.

[Taco John]

LOL

What exactly don't I know what I'm talking about?



To tell you the truth, I stopped reading when you dismissed the experts without bothering to validate why you were dismissing them. I found your dismissal of them dubious at best.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

To tell you the truth, I stopped reading when you dismissed the experts without bothering to validate why you were dismissing them. I found your dismissal of them dubious at best. Too bad, you missed the part about how they really WEREN'T experts.

The film's author's were 3 college kids trying to break into the film business.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And this is where LABF and his ilk jump off into loony-land.

Oh wait - they were already there - this just proves it.

This is where the O"W*GS factor and his ilk demonstrate their customary difficulties with reading comprehension.

News flash:

It's not "LABF and his ilk" making the charges here - it's a former Bush administration official, viz., the former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the ex-top economist for George W. Bush's Labor Department.

W*GS' desperate attempt to lump Morgan Reynolds in with Michael Moore is hilarious. :laugh:

[Taco John]

Too bad, you missed the part about how they really WEREN'T experts.


Like I said... I can just as easily waive you off, just by waiving a dismissive hand and flicking my wrist backwards. How hard is that?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Like I said... I can just as easily waive you off, just by waiving a dismissive hand and flicking my wrist backwards. How hard is that?
I backed my statement's with links and references to facts, do you want to try and refute them?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's bogus because to believe it, one has to assume that bush and rove could foretell their ability to manage the media.

???

You're suggesting that Rove couldn't foretell his ability to manage the media?

Managing the media is how Rove got to where he is today.

[Taco John]

I backed my statement's with links and references to facts, do you want to try and refute them?

That's news to me... Seemed you designated yourself an expert and just started up the hot air machine.

I'm more than open to any facts. I'd love to get a factual explination on how WTC7 became the first steel structured building in the history of the world to collapse due to fire damage. Why don't you start there?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That's news to me... Seemed you designated yourself an expert and just started up the hot air machine.

I'm more than open to any facts. I'd love to get a factual explination on how WTC7 became the first steel structured building in the history of the world to collapse due to fire damage. Why don't you start there?
They're all in the thread, don't be lazy but for giggles name one thing I posted in that thread you disagree with.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's say is was an inside job....what good could come from exposing it?

???

Is this a serious question?

[Hogan11]

Hogan's right in regards to the video AQ supposedly shot of the WTC. I think it was found in one of the caves in Afghanistan. It was broadcast soon thereafter. It had a touristy feel to it, so I'm sure the people shooting it didn't raise any red flags.

Then again if this is an inside job...it would make perfect sense to "find" such a video when you raid AQ's lair.

I for one really hope that all this talk about a government conspiracy is nonsense. If the administration had anything to do with it...geez.

Thanks for the confirmation on that....I was pretty sure a linkman was going to jump on that. I knew I'd seen it somewhere, but I never saved it or anything, so I couldn't produce it to prove it.

[Taco John]

They're all in the thread, don't be lazy but for giggles name one thing I posted in that thread you disagree with.


Like I said, I stopped reading when you dismissed the experts without bothering to validate why you were dismissing them.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Like I said, I stopped reading when you dismissed the experts without bothering to validate why you were dismissing them.
What "experts" are you talking about, the 3 college kids who made the video hoping to further themselves in the film business? I researched everyone of the so called experts and provided information on all of them (including the project manager for the towers construction).

You are really coming up with some weak takes here. I linked to experts and scientists from some of the finest learning institutions in the world for references and facts.

Please explain what "experts" you are talking about?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If only we could have a real investigation in which all the experts from all sides get to present their evidence...

...what the heck am I thinking?

Clinton's johnson wasn't involved - we don't need no stinking investigation.

[DBruleU]

If only we could have a real investigation in which all the experts from all sides get to present their evidence...

...what the heck am I thinking?

Clinton's johnson wasn't involved - we don't need no stinking investigation.

Your obsession with Clintons member is very intriguing.

What's the deal????

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your obsession with Clintons member is very intriguing.

What's the deal????

Um, no.

"Obsession" would best describe your party's fixation on Clinton's private life throughout Clinton's two terms as POTUS (and to this day.)

[mosca]

If only we could have a real investigation in which all the experts from all sides get to present their evidence...
i actually agree with LABF here - a real investigation would be a good thing, particularly tests of the scrap metal for accelerants to find any possible evidence of these secondary explosives that TJ and his video so adamantly like to point out. whatever results would finally lay this debate to rest, and without such examination, it will likely continue indefinitely.

has the government ever given any reason at all why the WTC wreckage was scrapped and sold, particularly so quickly without being fully investigated? the only halfway valid reason i can see would be simply to make a quick buck. that doesn't justify the lack of an investigation into the wreckage.

[elsid13]

i actually agree with LABF here - a real investigation would be a good thing, particularly tests of the scrap metal for accelerants to find any possible evidence of these secondary explosives that TJ and his video so adamantly like to point out. whatever results would finally lay this debate to rest, and without such examination, it will likely continue indefinitely.

has the government ever given any reason at all why the WTC wreckage was scrapped and sold, particularly so quickly without being fully investigated? the only halfway valid reason i can see would be simply to make a quick buck. that doesn't justify the lack of an investigation into the wreckage.

The scrap metal and wreckage was removed because of the potential health risk. At the time people were not acting rational and anything that potential cause a health risk was removed, it was better to be safe then sorry. Some of the metal was used to lay the keels of two US Navy Ships, to honor the victims and act a remembrance of what happen. The simple fact is two planes hit the WTC, flown by people that hated this nation. The building's structure could not handle the impact and heat generated by attack. I learn long ago the simplest answer is usually the right one. Adding complexity to plan or action means Mr. Murphy has go chance to screw with you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The scrap metal and wreckage was removed because of the potential health risk. At the time people were not acting rational and anything that potential cause a health risk was removed, it was better to be safe then sorry.

How do I know this is bullsh*t?

The political hack Bush put in charge of the EPA lied when she declared prematurely that it was safe for the NYC responders and workers to return to ground zero. Consequently, many of these workers have become seriously ill from exposure to toxins - thanks to BushCo's lies and bullsh*t.

Doesn't exactly sound like an administration that is concerned about public health risks (as events like Katrina have subsequently demonstrated.)

The simple fact is two planes hit the WTC, flown by people that hated this nation. The building's structure could not handle the impact and heat generated by attack.

This isn't the "simple fact" - more like the "simpleton assessment of the facts."


I learn long ago the simplest answer is usually the right one.

In this particular case the simplest answer isn't the 'right' one - just the easiest and most comfortable one.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The simple fact is two planes hit the WTC, flown by people that hated this nation. The building's structure could not handle the impact and heat generated by attack. This is absolutely why the towers imploded on themselves, not because of some fantasy but for those who like to indulge in fantasy, tell me how multiple crews of workers could enter both towers and for WEEKS, tear down walls, insulation and fire retardant off steel columns, attach and wire explosives without being noticed.

And then tell me how people who had never flown jumbo jet airliners before, fly those planes at 500 mph into the exact areas above the "planted explosives".

This isn't even good fantasy. The ONLY reason the towers fell down on themselves was because they were compromised by impact and heat damage from jumbo jet airliners.

-------------------------------------------------------------
http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=970311&postcount=87

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=970587&postcount=126

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=970711&postcount=160

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=971331&postcount=215

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=971789&postcount=253

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=972146&postcount=289

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=972515&postcount=298

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=972833&postcount=331

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=973576&postcount=485

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=973620&postcount=489

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=973661&postcount=499

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=973700&postcount=503

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=974045&postcount=542


------------------------------------------------------------
http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=974092&postcount=570
This is NOT a government explanation but information from many scientists and engineers from different universities and companies.

There's enough material, links and references her for hours of reading, enjoy.

It's a full moon and I'm off to the Tiki bar for some dancin, wine and women.
-----------------------------------------
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

-------------
There have been numerous reports detailing the cause of the World Trade Center Tower collapse on September 11, 2001. Most have provided qualitative explanations; however, simple quantitative analyses show that some common conclusions are incorrect; for example, the steel could not melt in these flames and there was more structural damage than merely softening of the steel at elevated temperatures. Some guidelines for improvements in future structures are presented.

INTRODUCTION

The collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on September 11, 2001, was as sudden as it was dramatic; the complete destruction of such massive buildings shocked nearly everyone. Immediately afterward and even today, there is widespread speculation that the buildings were structurally deficient, that the steel columns melted, or that the fire suppression equipment failed to operate. In order to separate the fact from the fiction, we have attempted to quantify various details of the collapse.

The major events include the following: -----------------------------------------------
* The airplane impact with damage to the columns.
* The ensuing fire with loss of steel strength and distortion (Figure 1).
* The collapse, which generally occurred inward without significant tipping (Figure 2).

Each will be discussed separately, but initially it is useful to review the overall design of the towers.

THE DESIGN

The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.

To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.

The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). Prior to the World Trade Center with its lightweight perimeter tube design, most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.1

THE AIRLINE IMPACT

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).

THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

WAS THE WTC DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED?

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov corktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web.5–8
http://tinyurl.com/6luh

References

1. Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001).
2. D. Drysdale, An Introduction to Fire Dynamics (New York: Wiley Interscience, 1985), pp. 134–140.
3. A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 10–67.
4. A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
5. Steven Ashley, “When the Twin Towers Fell,” Scientific American Online (October 9, 2001); www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc/ (http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc/)
6. Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, (September 28, 2001), also www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/ (http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/)
7. Timothy Wilkinson, “World Trade Centre–New York—Some Engineering Aspects” (October 25, 2001), Univ. Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering; www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm).
8. G. Charles Clifton, “Collapse of the World Trade Centers,” CAD Headlines, tenlinks.com (October 8, 2001); www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/special/wtc/clifton/p1.htm (http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/special/wtc/clifton/p1.htm).

Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

For more information, contact T.W. Eagar, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 4-136, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4301; (617) 253-3229; fax (617) 252-1773; e-mail tweagar@mit.edu.
v

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As noted philosopher-theologian and 9/11 revisionist historian David Griffin writes: "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

A growing list of scientists has lined up behind BYU physicist Steven Jones and MIT engineer Jeff King in support of Griffin's position, as evidenced by the growth of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) and Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (physics911.net).

[Needa Pass Rush]

So we are now off the conspiracy that it was just a missle that hit the pentagon? What flavor koolaid are we sipping today?

Here is a rebuttal for Morgan Reynolds.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html

[defenseman]

Proof is required. If an investigation shows an inside job, but by whom? Then, I'll buy in. Right now, it's all conjecture, smoke and mirrors of course. If proven , I'll buy in..dman

[bendog]

???

You're suggesting that Rove couldn't foretell his ability to manage the media?

Managing the media is how Rove got to where he is today.
They certainly weren't managing the media before 9-11. Polls were falling. To assume it was an inside job, one logically would have to assume Rove (and JR, though he's not bright nor inquiring) could foretell Democrats uniting. Maybe that could be foretold briefly, but imo no one expected the media would just go into a collective bj on ignoring the FACT that we knew before invading Saddam had no functioning nuke or biol programs, let alone accepting at face value the notion that we'd be welcomed as liberators, when only 10 years before we begged off invading cause Poppy knew it'd be a qWagmire.

MSNBC sure didn't know when they hired Donahue, whom they had to axe cause he was offending the corporate sponsors selling tampons or whatever, even though his ratings were higher than their other programming. Don't diss the surge of flagwaving as the kids are marched off to the desert.

[alkemical]

How can they not 'find' those who sold the stock on 9/11 to make cash?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

How can they not 'find' those who sold the stock on 9/11 to make cash?
Who did?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of trading by people with foreknowledge

News accounts in the aftermath reported a suspicious pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines [15] [16]and other unusual market activity [17].

Many theorists[citation needed] had viewed the activities of the stock market and certain financial transactions as evidence of foreknowledge.

* The most notable reference concerns the option market where more than 6 times the volume of put options were purchased in the days before 9/11 on both American and United Airlines than normal.
* Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, in her statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003 noted the put options placed on United and American Airlines:

"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account." [18]

* On September 10 Amr "Anthony" Elgindy, an Egyptian-born financial analyst, tried to liquidate his children's $300,000 trust account." Although this report doesn't indicate US involvement, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen has stated that this could have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. [19]

However, each trade was examined and no evidence of a connection was found according to the 9/11 Commission based upon investigation by the SEC and FBI. Commission Report page 51 of this PDF

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face.

Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.

These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo,Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
http://tinyurl.com/cc7tu

[Rascal]

Did anybody pay attention in the other thread where I linked to a story on PBS about the owner of WC7 giving approval to bring it down?

If not, I suggest going back and checking it out.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Did anybody pay attention in the other thread where I linked to a story on PBS about the owner of WC7 giving approval to bring it down?
If not, I suggest going back and checking it out.

I debunked it immediately also.

[Rascal]

I debunked it immediately also.

I'm not able to do full searches due to the firewall. Do you have the link to that debunking?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm not able to do full searches due to the firewall. Do you have the link to that debunking?

"Larry Silverstein, the controller of Building 7, the third skyscraper to totally collapse on 9/11/01, gave an interview, portions of which were reproduced in a PBS documentary aired on September 10, 2002, entitled America Rebuilds. The story that Silverstein assented to the demolition of WTC 7, based on an excerpt from the interview, has been widely circulated on websites, books, and videos. This page first recounts that story, in much the same form as it appearaed on earlier versions of this page, an then proceeds to examine the issue in greater depth."

Of course there are even greater problems with the implication that Silverstein and the FDNY decided to demolish the building only on the day of 9/11/01:

* Rigging a building for controlled demolition normally takes weeks of preparation -- far longer than the at most a few hours between the determination that "they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire," and the 5:20 PM collapse of the building.
* The building had several areas of fire -- hardly conditions under which a demolitions team could be expected to lay high explosives.
http://tinyurl.com/f2pu4

[defenseman]

This is a f**king witch hunt. Come up with some hard facts, put the puzzle together, and I'll buy. Not until then. Yep, it's all GW's fault again.....not surprising. Sick and tired of the conspiracy s**t...dman

[alkemical]

Who did?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of trading by people with foreknowledge

News accounts in the aftermath reported a suspicious pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines [15] [16]and other unusual market activity [17].

Many theorists[citation needed] had viewed the activities of the stock market and certain financial transactions as evidence of foreknowledge.

* The most notable reference concerns the option market where more than 6 times the volume of put options were purchased in the days before 9/11 on both American and United Airlines than normal.
* Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, in her statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003 noted the put options placed on United and American Airlines:

"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account." [18]

* On September 10 Amr "Anthony" Elgindy, an Egyptian-born financial analyst, tried to liquidate his children's $300,000 trust account." Although this report doesn't indicate US involvement, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen has stated that this could have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. [19]

However, each trade was examined and no evidence of a connection was found according to the 9/11 Commission based upon investigation by the SEC and FBI. Commission Report page 51 of this PDF

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face.

Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.

These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo,Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
http://tinyurl.com/cc7tu



ya, and i got sources that said the hard drives were damaged and they couldn't recover who did what.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

ya, and i got sources that said the hard drives were damaged and they couldn't recover who did what. What hard drives? Trading records can't be expunged because of a hard drive failure. Records are automatically recorded by the brokers and exchanges once a trade is executed.

[defenseman]

Ok, great. Now, what else you got? Damaged hard drives are now the conspiracy? What's the proof? This is alot of fun, I could do this all day. I do enjoy blowing holes surface craft (targets) and sending them to Davy Jones locker, might as well be yours...dman

[alkemical]

What hard drives? Trading records can't be expunged because of a hard drive failure. Records are automatically recorded by the brokers and exchanges once a trade is executed.



that's exactly my point.

I have cnet and wired stores archived at home - that state they couldn't track the transactions due the hard drive failures from the WTC attacks, nevermind the redudancy that wall st would have for such systems.

Now from working for multi-billion dollar companies, one in particular did SEC filings for other companies - i know that those stories were udder crap and horseshiate.

Just like 2hrs after 9/11 happened and they said they found a hijackers car and it had a copy of the koran in it, i knew that was disinfo as well.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ok, great. Now, what else you got? Damaged hard drives are now the conspiracy? What's the proof? This is alot of fun, I could do this all day. I do enjoy blowing holes surface craft (targets) and sending them to Davy Jones locker, might as well be yours...dman
What exactly are you doing to "blow holes" in anything?

[clarker]

I've never seen 24. I don't watch much television at all, to tell you the truth... Mostly NFL when I do. And the Office.

Your jet fuel explination isn't plausible because the jet fuel wasn't contained at that point. And the generators you are speaking of wouldn't generate enough of a blast to bring down a steel structured building, even after the plane had hit it. Evidence seems to indicate that the blasts were timed to go off throughout the building in an orchestrated fasion.

I stand by the conclusion that there were secondary charges. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this claim.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

[Rascal]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Video showing a plane crashing into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, will be seen publicly for the first time on Tuesday, a judicial watchdog said.

The Department of Defense will release tapes showing American Airlines Flight 77 striking its headquarters outside Washington to Judicial Watch, a public interest group that requested the video, the group said.

The video will be available on the group's Web site after it receives the tape at 1 p.m., according to a news release from Judicial Watch.

[alkemical]

I never bought into the 'pod people's' explanation for 'no plane'. They had enough to make me look into it - but i found enough to say it was a plane. I think part of the 'no plane' stuff was a disinfo ploy as well. Not that the gov't set the disinfo in motion, but ya know - sometimes i think that's why conspiracies aren't debunked - it's best to have a blanket of secrecy.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st Responder Eyewitnesses

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IwQa5eokieY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IwQa5eokieY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q8XToX7aSdg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q8XToX7aSdg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[W*GS]

Bill Clinton thinks you're full of ****, LABF.

That leaves you with a conundrum - either your God, Bill Clinton, is wrong (which you've never allowed before), or, your God, Bill Clinton, despises you.

Which is it?

[W*GS]

Oh, and BTW, Jeff King got a degree in electrical engineering from MIT, some time in the 70s, but he's not an engineer at MIT. Now, if the WTC collapsed because its wiring shorted out, his education might have some relevance, but I'll take the word of a structural engineer (you know, someone with relevant knowledge) over his.

As usual, a troofer (i.e., LABF) is intellectually dishonest. Wadda shocker.