CNN confirms E-4B fly-over on 911

[mhgaffney]

CNN has just confirmed that the world's most advanced military plane circled over the White House on 911. In recent days several web sites had posted my research on this -- which may have prodded CNN into action.

Here's the link. It includes both text and video.
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/CNN_investigates_secret_911_doomsday_plane_0913.ht ml

The CNN story is not only confirmation. It's also the first serious attempt to debunk my article -- by spinning the E-4B story in the expected fashion. We are supposed to believe that the USAF plane was on a legitimate mission. Of course, this is possible -- but given what we now know -- unlikely. CNN leaves out crucial facts:

1. Why did the USAF officially deny the presence of this plane? Last year, the USAF lied to a member of Congress, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who looked into this matter through official channels. Our elected representatives supposedly have access to classified information. But not in this case, apparently. Why not?

2. Why was the event expunged from history for 6 years? Videos of this event were shown in the UK, in Spain, and probably in many other nations during the world coverage of 911 -- yet the video evidence of the E-4B was kept out of the news here in America. Until now. Why?

3. Lee Hamilton, co chair of the 911 Commission, now says he knew about the fly over -- but left it out of his official investigation because he deemed it was not important enough. Hamilton has called the "conspiracy theories" ludicrous. But what is really ludicrous is his statement that the presence of the E-4B was not important enough! His statement on CNN is absurd -- and thoroughly discredits the official 911 investigation and its final report, which makes no mention of the E-4B, not even in a footnote.

4. The CNN story fails to mention the E-4B's involvement in NORAD's Global Guardian exercise. It also fails to mention that in 2001 Global Guardian was rescheduled from October to September. Are we to believe this was mere coincidence? It is well known that military exercises commonly provide cover for covert operations.

5. CNN also fails to mention the serious discrepancies in the official narrative regarding the timeline -- i.e., when the E-4B first appeared over Washington -- and the exact time of the Pentagon strike. There is compelling evidence that the E-4B was already present well BEFORE the Pentagon strike. Indeed, there is powerful evidence that the US military lied about the actual time of the Pentagon strike. For what reason? Perhaps, to conceal the E-4B's presence?

One thing is certain. This issue is not going to go away until we get some real answers.

MHG

[Rohirrim]

There's no denying it. An E-4B flew over the WH on the morning of 911 while the Pentagon was burning.

What does it mean? ???

[W*GS]

It means that the Jews were behind the mini-nukes that were planted by Bush's relative months before 9/11, that Silverstein had WTC7 demolished for the insurance money, Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania by the mysterious white plane, Flight 77 landed in Cleveland, and no planes actually hit WTC1 and WTC2.

Essentially, gaffney is right on everything!

Keep up, Ro!

[ak1971]

I took a dump that morning..does that mean Im part of the conspiracy?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

3. Lee Hamilton, co chair of the 911 Commission, now says he knew about the fly over -- but left it out of his official investigation because he deemed it was not important enough. Hamilton has called the "conspiracy theories" ludicrous. But what is really ludicrous is his statement that the presence of the E-4B was not important enough! His statement on CNN is absurd -- and thoroughly discredits the official 911 investigation and its final report, which makes no mention of the E-4B, not even in a footnote.

No surprise there - Hamilton has been a major Bush bootlicker and whitewash specialist since the Iran-Contra days.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/110500b.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

http://www.bartcop.com/hamilton-whitewash.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

One thing is certain. This issue is not going to go away until we get some real answers.


And the only "real" answer you'll accept is that the plane was used to remote-control a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon, right? No other answer could possibly be the truth, right Gaff? Uhh

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And the only "real" answer you'll accept is that the plane was used to remote-control a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon, right? No other answer could possibly be the truth, right Gaff? Uhh

Whereas the only answer you will accept is the one proffered by the official BushCo account (despite the fact that Bush stonewalled and fought tooth and nail against any investigation of 9/11.)

[ant1999e]

Didn't we already do this once before?

[Bronco Bob]

Didn't we already do this once before?

Gaffney hopes if he repeats the same thing over and over enough times
we will get tired of rebutting him and I guess for him this will be some
sort of victory. Any day now I expect to see him posting another
article refuting the Big Bang theory of the creation of the Universe.

[mhgaffney]

Gaffney hopes if he repeats the same thing over and over enough times
we will get tired of rebutting him and I guess for him this will be some
sort of victory. Any day now I expect to see him posting another
article refuting the Big Bang theory of the creation of the Universe.

No, you are wrong. Each time I have posted new information --

When I started out, you and the other knee jerks on this board pronounced the first E-4B video a "fake!"

But we now have multiple lines of evidence -- six separate videos of this same plane -- and in addition Linda Brookhart's photo. All of them are mutually corroborative. I think it's safe to say that the presence of the E-4B over the White House on 911 has been conclusively demonstrated -- as Rohirrim noted.

Now the question becomes -- as he also indicated -- what does it all mean?

I can live with this characterization -- and have posted my views about it. You are welcome to your own -- but it comes down to hard evidence.

I believe we are now only one breakthrough away from blasting the official 911 narrative to kingdom come. Somebody somewhere is holding this crucial bit of information --

Let us hope and pray he comes forward before it's too late -- while there's stioll time to impeach and indict the perpetrators -- BEFORE Bush and Cheney ignite the spark that consumes the planet.

[Rohirrim]

What I know of the E-4B is that it is one of the most secret planes in the Air Force arsenal. The SOP is to never speak of it. So, we'll probably never find out. Who knows? Maybe it will be declassified in forty years. Or maybe Dems will get in office and launch a new investigation. I know one thing, using the JFK assassination as an example. There are some people who will never be satisfied. Never.

[W*GS]

Whereas the only answer you will accept is the one proffered by the official BushCo account (despite the fact that Bush stonewalled and fought tooth and nail against any investigation of 9/11.)

I've asked several times before, and you've never answered...

Is gaffney closer to the truth about 9/11 or is the 9/11 Commission?

Why are you so cowardly about answering a simple question?

[Bronco Bob]

No, you are wrong. Each time I have posted new information --

When I started out, you and the other knee jerks on this board pronounced the first E-4B video a "fake!"



I never said anything of the kind. I disputed your original claim that it
wasn't a plane that crashed into the Pentagon. You later on even
acknowledged I was correct, that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon.

[mhgaffney]

I never said anything of the kind. I disputed your original claim that it
wasn't a plane that crashed into the Pentagon. You later on even
acknowledged I was correct, that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon.

OK Maybe that is true.

I have admited mistakes on this board -- but have you? Never. You led the readers of this board on a wild goose chase with your crackpot theory that the fires in the WTC were comparable to a blast furnace.

You claimed -- wrongly -- that steel begins to lose its strength at 250 C. That is grossly wrong -- in fact it only starts to lose its strength at around 420 C --

Did you even once question the veracity of the official 911 story -- or the 911 Commission? Or the NIST report? No -- never. You have swallowed it all -- the whole enchilada. The big lie goes down so much easier.

Did you even once encourage the search for the truth re 911? No -- never.

Did you even once call for a new 911 investigation? No -- of course not.

Despite your pretensions of being a Bush critic, you are Bush and Cheney's peanut gallery. You believe whatever they tell you.

Like a well trained lap dog.

[mhgaffney]

What I know of the E-4B is that it is one of the most secret planes in the Air Force arsenal. The SOP is to never speak of it. So, we'll probably never find out. Who knows? Maybe it will be declassified in forty years. Or maybe Dems will get in office and launch a new investigation. I know one thing, using the JFK assassination as an example. There are some people who will never be satisfied. Never.

And thank God there are a few Americans who value the truth. The reason we are in the mess we are in is because our nation allowed a sitting president -- JFK -- to be assassinated in broad daylight -- and did not demand that the killers be brougt to justice. The killers walked and still prowl our streets...more dangerous than ever.

I've just finished an important book BATTLING WALL STREET by Donald Gibson, which I recommend highly. The author shows that JFK was killed because of his progressive economic policies --

Which did not favor the small clique of bankers and inustrialists -- but sought the improvement of the country as a whole. JFK also opposed colonialism -- the domination of the third world by this same group of men.

The book helped me to understand why JFK was loved everywhere on earth -- why the poorest of the poor around the world put his picture on the wall -- and mourned his murder. The world's poor knew JFK was their champion - and they were right.

Our nation's economy flourished through the 1960s because of JFK's policies -- but then started a long decline -- which has accelerated in the last 20 years. Speculators have won -- over sustained long term development.

Our nation has been destroyed by the same greedy and powerful men who killed JFK. And you whine about people who are never satisfied?

You are part of the problem!

[Rohirrim]

And thank God there are a few Americans who value the truth. The reason we are in the mess we are in is because our nation allowed a sitting president -- JFK -- to be assassinated in broad daylight -- and did not demand that the killers be brougt to justice. The killers walked and still prowl our streets...more dangerous than ever.

I've just finished an important book BATTLING WALL STREET by Donald Gibson, which I recommend highly. The author shows that JFK was killed because of his progressive economic policies --

Which did not favor the small clique of bankers and inustrialists -- but sought the improvement of the country as a whole. JFK also opposed colonialism -- the domination of the third world by this same group of men.

The book helped me to understand why JFK was loved everywhere on earth -- why the poorest of the poor around the world put his picture on the wall -- and mourned his murder. The world's poor knew JFK was their champion - and they were right.

Our nation's economy flourished through the 1960s because of JFK's policies -- but then started a long decline -- which has accelerated in the last 20 years. Speculators have won -- over sustained long term development.

Our nation has been destroyed by the same greedy and powerful men who killed JFK. And you whine about people who are never satisfied?

You are part of the problem!

You know what the first thing Mark David Chapman said to police after shooting John Lennon? He said, "I was tired of being a nobody." Why do I believe Oswald acted alone? Because his own brother believed it. Because everyone who knew him really well believed it. None of them ever questioned it. They knew Oswald. They knew what motivated him. They knew why he did it. Because he was tired of being a nobody. Sad, but that's "the truth."

I have a question for you (and I won't even disparage you or resort to name calling). Of all of these events that have happened in the last fifty or so years:

1. The assassination of JFK
2. The assassination of MLK
3. The assassination of RFK
4. The attack on the WTC

Which one of those was NOT the product of a conspiracy?

[Bronco Bob]

OK Maybe that is true.

I have admited mistakes on this board -- but have you? Never. You led the readers of this board on a wild goose chase with your crackpot theory that the fires in the WTC were comparable to a blast furnace.


No, it was your crackpot theory that fire can't melt steel. I merely showed
that fire is capable of melting steel. But that's a red herring anyway,
because it wasn't required to melt the steel to bring down the towers
anyway, just heat the beams enough to weaken them.



You claimed -- wrongly -- that steel begins to lose its strength at 250 C. That is grossly wrong -- in fact it only starts to lose its strength at around 420 C --



Interesting just yesterday I was talking with someone from New York.
His dad had worked in construction and he is quite familiar with buildings
and construction techniques. He was there when the building were built
and watched them go up and saw how they were built. He said as soon
as he saw those fires he knew the buildings were going to collapse
and just wished he had a way of warning people to get out.



Did you even once question the veracity of the official 911 story -- or the 911 Commission? Or the NIST report? No -- never. You have swallowed it all -- the whole enchilada. The big lie goes down so much easier.

No, I question you and your theories. The NIST and the 911 Commission
aren't here on this board making outrageous claims. If they were and
I detected BS in what they were saying, I would tell them so.
If you can't make your case, why should I believe you. Time after time
you have been proven wrong

Did you even once encourage the search for the truth re 911? No -- never.

Did you even once call for a new 911 investigation? No -- of course not.


I have provided you numerous websites and data that have refuted your
claims and offered alternate explanations. Yet in each case you dismiss
them out of hand, or just ignore them. That steel is flammable being
a prime example.



Despite your pretensions of being a Bush critic, you are Bush and Cheney's peanut gallery. You believe whatever they tell you.

Like a well trained lap dog.

No, once again it is you who is confused. I just don't believe what you are
telling me. Unlike you and Bush, I don't take the view you are either against
us of for us. I think Bush is wrong on a lot of things and I think you are
also wrong on a lot of things. It is you that is closed minded and refuses
to consider alternate explanations because they don't fit your world view.

[Rigs11]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN

[mhgaffney]

Bob, the truly outrageous claim is the claim that a plane impact and a fire brought down each of the WTC towers. As Carl Sagan once said: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..."

And since there were / are no examles of fires/impacts bringing down steel frame sky scrapers before or since 911 -- the burden of evidence to show how this happened was on the proponents of the official 911 story -- esp FEMA and the NIST.

If you read the NIST report you would know they failed to prove their case. But of course, you didn't read it. Nor did you read my critique. Then you have the effrontery to defend a paper as if it were gospel.

This is the same mentality -- that leads you to accept uncritically the Warren Commission report about the JFK assassination.

As I think it was Allen Dulles said back in them days (he was a member of the Warren Commission) -- and I'm paraphrasing: "No matter that the paper is a whitewash -- Americans don't read reports."

No, they'd much rather watch fooooball games.

I say this as a long time Bronco fan who manages to do both.

[mhgaffney]

Of course fire can melt steel. If you have a fire that burns hot enough.

I never said otherwise. What I said was there was no fuel in the WTC or 767s capable of burning hot enough. For Chrissake -- the NIST scientsts even admited this.

This is not rocket science. It's pretty simple and even so you can't manage to wrap your brain around it.

You pump pure 02 into a fire and yes you can jack up the temp -- so who did that in the WTC, Bob? Are we to believe that binny Laden placed a cell phone call and ordered in the pure Oxygen? Get serious.

You think the steel in the WTC burned? So where is the evidence? You have presented none. As in zip. I guarantee you there is no discussion of burning steel in the NIST report.

[Bronco Bob]

Bob, the truly outrageous claim is the claim that a plane impact and a fire brought down each of the WTC towers. As Carl Sagan once said: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..."

And since there were / are no examles of fires/impacts bringing down steel frame sky scrapers before or since 911 -- the burden of evidence to show how this happened was on the proponents of the official 911 story -- esp FEMA and the NIST.



So how come my friend from New York knew the towers were going to
collapse as soon as he saw the fires? Or is he another government plant?



This is the same mentality -- that leads you to accept uncritically the Warren Commission report about the JFK assassination.

As I think it was Allen Dulles said back in them days (he was a member of the Warren Commission) -- and I'm paraphrasing: "No matter that the paper is a whitewash -- Americans don't read reports."

No, they'd much rather watch fooooball games.

I say this as a long time Bronco fan who manages to do both.

No, your's is the same mentality that allows you to believe any half
baked conspiracy theory that comes along. You reject all evidence
to the contrary and toss out all logic and skepticism.
Tell me what other conspiracies you believe.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The government is covering up UFOs.

The moon landings were faked.

FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked.

There really is a face on Mars and NASA is covering it up.

The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was caused by the US military

Paul McCartney is dead.

[Bronco Bob]

Of course fire can melt steel. If you have a fire that burns hot enough.

I never said otherwise. What I said was there was no fuel in the WTC or 767s capable of burning hot enough. For Chrissake -- the NIST scientsts even admited this.

This is not rocket science. It's pretty simple and even so you can't manage to wrap your brain around it.

You pump pure 02 into a fire and yes you can jack up the temp -- so who did that in the WTC, Bob? Are we to believe that binny Laden placed a cell phone call and ordered in the pure Oxygen? Get serious.

And what I further went on to say is it isn't necessary to melt the steel
in order to weaken it enough to no longer support the building.
Yet you keep insisting the fire had to be hot enough to liquefy
the steel in order for the towers to collapse.
Try this, get some long nails, a propane torch, and a force gauge.
Put some a large nails in a freezer over night. Then put it in a vise
and pull it with the force gauge. Record the force it takes
to bend the nail. Now take another nail of the same size at
room temperature and record the force to bend it.
Now take another nail and heat it to a dull red with the propane
torch and record the force to bend it. Now take another nail
and heat it to a bright yellow and record its bend force.
Is the bend force for all four nails the same?
If not, does this not prove that hot steel bends much easier than
cold steel?




You think the steel in the WTC burned? So where is the evidence? You have presented none. As in zip. I guarantee you there is no discussion of burning steel in the NIST report.

Do you have a memory impairment? The burning steel was in your reference
to molten steel being found in the rubble of the WTC several months later.
Why would the NIST report address molten steel found in the basement
weeks after the fact?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bob, the truly outrageous claim is the claim that a plane impact and a fire brought down each of the WTC towers. As Carl Sagan once said: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..."


To say nothing of the outrageous claim that both towers collapsed in exactly the same way, i.e., fell into their own footprints, from the effects of fire alone, when nothing like this has ever happened before.

[alkemical]

Ok i do have a question:

If it was hot enough to weaken steel, would or could anyone survive?

If not, can someone explain this to me:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_woman_impact-area_full_large.jpg

[W*GS]

To say nothing of the outrageous claim that both towers collapsed in exactly the same way, i.e., fell into their own footprints, from the effects of fire alone, when nothing like this has ever happened before.

Who makes the claim you state above?

Who's closer to the truth of what happened on 9/11, LABF - gaffney or the 9/11 Commission?

Don't think we haven't noticed your inability to answer the question... Perhaps, some day, you'll get lucky and 'bartcop' will have a picture so you don't have to engage your brain.

[W*GS]

Ok i do have a question:

If it was hot enough to weaken steel, would or could anyone survive?

If not, can someone explain this to me:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_woman_impact-area_full_large.jpg

She was in an area not currently subject to fire; there's also the fact that the fires in the interior were likely drawing in air from the destroyed outer wall. In short, she wasn't in a very hot area.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

She was in an area not currently subject to fire; there's also the fact that the fires in the interior were likely drawing in air from the destroyed outer wall. In short, she wasn't in a very hot area.I have a question for you. Why do you keep these absurd threads alive by pandering to the fringe?

[alkemical]

She was in an area not currently subject to fire; there's also the fact that the fires in the interior were likely drawing in air from the destroyed outer wall. In short, she wasn't in a very hot area.

Well according to the report (9/11 commish) - the floor would have been covered with fuel and a fire of over 800 deg. Cel. was in effect to weaken the steel - Not that your "possible" explantion is wrong, i just find it difficult to image that a whole area covered with fuel and burning at over 800/cel would not be "hot".

This "zoomed out" picture might give you a better view:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg

[W*GS]

I'm curious to see where they go. Of course clavicula will end up at his subjective skepticism state, where my reality says something other than his reality, and we can't judge which one is better, and all that stuff...

[W*GS]

Well according to the report (9/11 commish)

The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate the tower collapses themselves - NIST did.

- the floor would have been covered with fuel and a fire of over 800 deg. Cel. was in effect to weaken the steel - Not that your "possible" explantion is wrong, i just find it difficult to image that a whole area covered with fuel and burning at over 800/cel would not be "hot".

The jet fuel burned away in relatively short order - and where she's standing could have been quite some distance from the active fire. And like I said, air flowing into the building was cool.

[alkemical]

I'm curious to see where they go. Of course clavicula will end up at his subjective skepticism state, where my reality says something other than his reality, and we can't judge which one is better, and all that stuff...

just little things Wags, just little things. I don't have a problem with you adhering to the 9/11 commision report, but it doesn't tie it up in a neat little bow for me. I'm sorry if my skeptisim for both 9/11 truthers (Like mini-nukes or a CIA strike) and the 9/11 report is equaled.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm curious to see where they go. Of course clavicula will end up at his subjective skepticism state, where my reality says something other than his reality, and we can't judge which one is better, and all that stuff...You know exactly where they will go as do I and some others. With your intellect and accumulation of knowledge, do you sometimes feel guilty for wasting time on this crap?

[alkemical]

The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate the tower collapses themselves - NIST did.



The jet fuel burned away in relatively short order - and where she's standing could have been quite some distance from the active fire. And like I said, air flowing into the building was cool.

yes, but the 9/11 report cites NIST work, does it not?

How long would it take for a fire to weaken steel, 30 seconds, 20min, 1hr? I also understand the impact also designated a major 'stressor' to the secondary (as well as primary) supports - but the BBC report on 9/11 discounted the 'pankcake' theory - so it's these little conflicts that don't add up. with nothing but one source refuting another source, it's very difficult to adhere to anything more than 'faith' as to which 'account' appears to be correct/more truthful.

[W*GS]

It's all subjective, isn't it, clavicula? Dragons, unicorns, elves, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy... That someone believes in them needs to be taken into account, and overall, we really can't say, can we?

We cannot know everything, so we cannot know anything...

[alkemical]

You know exactly where they will go as do I and some others. With your intellect and accumulation of knowledge, do you sometimes feel guilty for wasting time on this crap?

"Well lets not go sucking each others dicks just yet gentleman" - Pulp fiction

[alkemical]

It's all subjective, isn't it, clavicula? Dragons, unicorns, elves, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy... That someone believes in them needs to be taken into account, and overall, we really can't say, can we?

We cannot know everything, so we cannot know anything...

Aren't you the one that told me there is no 100% truth wags, so then why claim to have it. ad hominem attacks, wags? If that's all you got, i guess that's all you got.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"Well lets not go sucking each others ***** just yet gentleman" - Pulp fictionGreat line :)

But as you get older and more informed you will understand better the meaning of my post. And if you don't think W*GS isn't both (intelligent and informed no matter his silly and sometimes narrow views on some subjects) you're not paying attention.

[alkemical]

Great line :)

But as you get older and more informed you will understand better the meaning of my post.

I guess i will when i'm a grouchy beerslug.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I guess i will when i'm a grouchy beerslug.I'm pretty easy going and light hearted for the most part but I don't tolerate ignorance or stupidity very well, especially when people state ít as gospel, but that's just me :)

[alkemical]

I'm pretty easy going and light hearted for the most part but dont tolerate ignorance or stupidity very well, especially when people state ít as gospel, but that's just me :)

Yeah i get irritated too when people spout off things they don't undersand, like you and psychology, & media/communications. But as for as spouting this as gospel, i think you do a pretty good job of doing that on your own. It's ok though, i realize you can't teach an old dog new tricks - so i wish you well "slugging beers*.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yeah i get irritated too when people spout off things they don't undersand, like you and psychology, & media/communications. But as for as spouting this as gospel, i think you do a pretty good job of doing that on your own. It's ok though, i realize you can't teach an old dog new tricks - so i wish you well "slugging beers*.Well gee ames, I never studied psychology (formally) are you going to hold that against me? But I do recognize a paranoid trumpeter of all the world's misgivings when I see one.

[alkemical]

Well gee ames, I never studied psychology (formally) are you going to hold that against me? But I do recognize a paranoid trumpeter of all the world's misgivings when I see one.

Ahhh, slander last refuge of a scoundral. Well at least my public information is not all over google like some other's information is. Thank god i don't have to worry about any newspapers getting my information.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ahhh, slander last refuge of a scoundral. Well at least my public information is not all over google like some other's information is. Thank god i don't have to worry about any newspapers getting my information.Pitiful ames but then I remember you said you don't expect to live past 30 so that statement puts the rest of your nonsense in perspective.

[Rigs11]

And what I further went on to say is it isn't necessary to melt the steel
in order to weaken it enough to no longer support the building.
Yet you keep insisting the fire had to be hot enough to liquefy
the steel in order for the towers to collapse.
Try this, get some long nails, a propane torch, and a force gauge.
Put some a large nails in a freezer over night. Then put it in a vise
and pull it with the force gauge. Record the force it takes
to bend the nail. Now take another nail of the same size at
room temperature and record the force to bend it.
Now take another nail and heat it to a dull red with the propane
torch and record the force to bend it. Now take another nail
and heat it to a bright yellow and record its bend force.
Is the bend force for all four nails the same?
If not, does this not prove that hot steel bends much easier than
cold steel?




Do you have a memory impairment? The burning steel was in your reference
to molten steel being found in the rubble of the WTC several months later.
Why would the NIST report address molten steel found in the basement
weeks after the fact?

good talkin points.if we're talking about bending steel however, why is it that both towers fell straight down as opposed to falling over?One maybe, but both?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

good talkin points.if we're talking about bending steel however, why is it that both towers fell straight down as opposed to falling over?One maybe, but both?

Especially when nothing like this has ever happened before?

[alkemical]

Pitiful ames but then I remember you said you don't expect to live past 30 so that statement puts the rest of your nonsense in perspective.

Again, nothing more than personal attacks. What's a matter beerslug, feeling lonesome again tonight, or just feeling sntichy?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Especially when nothing like this has ever happened before?Man it's elementary physics, what is so ****ing hard to understand about a building collapsing from the top down, not falling over at the base? I mean it LA, think about it.
Again, nothing more than personal attacks. What's a matter beerslug, feeling lonesome again tonight, or just feeling sntichy?Ah, ames, you usually resort to name calling at this stage, what's wrong, need a smoke?

[alkemical]

Man it's elementary physics, what is so ****ing hard to understand about a building collapsing from the top down, not falling over at the base? I mean it LA, think about it.
Ah, ames, you usually resort to name calling at this stage, what's wrong, need a smoke?

No more than you need a beer.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Man it's elementary physics, what is so ****ing hard to understand about a building collapsing from the top down, not falling over at the base? I mean it LA, think about it.


Why is this so hard to believe?

1) Because a steel frame building has never collapsed as a result of fire before.

2) Because of the improbability of both towers neatly collapsing into their own footprints (like a controlled demolition.)

3) Because of the numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions on the lower levels before the collapse.

...and so many more problems with the BushCo account that have been discussed here ad infinitum.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Why is this so hard to believe?

1) Because a steel frame building has never collapsed as a result of fire before.

2) Because of the improbability of both towers neatly collapsing into their own footprints (like a controlled demolition.)

3) Because of the numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions on the lower levels before the collapse.

...and so many more problems with the BushCo account that have been discussed here ad infinitum.Geeezus, the towers fell from the top (impact points) down. They did NOT collapse from the base!!!!!!!

[Rohirrim]

I sat at home all Tuesday morning and watched the replay of what happened to the WTC on that morning. I guarantee you, without the shadow of a doubt, the collapse of both buildings initiated EXACTLY at the point where the jets had imbedded in the buildings. I also realized, watching the original tapes, that there was a perfectly solid explanation for the explosions that were happening. A number of firemen pointed it out at the time. When the jet hit the south tower, plumes of flaming debris fell to the street below. Much of it fell on parked cars. As the morning wore on, some of those cars started exploding. After the south tower fell, even more cars, including fire and emergency vehicles were caught in the flaming debris and they started going off too. Watch the tapes of the entire morning, like I did. It's right there. A couple of firemen say it right on the tape (to the effect) "We got cars exploding in the area as well. So we have to be careful going in there." It's clear as a bell.

[alkemical]

I sat at home all Tuesday morning and watched the replay of what happened to the WTC on that morning. I guarantee you, without the shadow of a doubt, the collapse of both buildings initiated EXACTLY at the point where the jets had imbedded in the buildings. I also realized, watching the original tapes, that there was a perfectly solid explanation for the explosions that were happening. A number of firemen pointed it out at the time. When the jet hit the south tower, plumes of flaming debris fell to the street below. Much of it fell on parked cars. As the morning wore on, some of those cars started exploding. After the south tower fell, even more cars, including fire and emergency vehicles were caught in the flaming debris and they started going off too. Watch the tapes of the entire morning, like I did. It's right there. A couple of firemen say it right on the tape (to the effect) "We got cars exploding in the area as well. So we have to be careful going in there." It's clear as a bell.

That's the reports i got as well from watching info that was taped that day. I have no doubts the towers fell due to the planes hitting them. I figure with the impact (speed/weight, fuel, etc) - that would be alot of sress for almost any building to handle. A small prop plane would have had no problems taking a hit of that magnitude.

I just want to know some of the things as to how and why. Which is why wags "induction method" of air would allow someone to stand in the impact hole makes the most sense. I just wanted to know thaty from teh reports of heat, etc - how long it would really take to actually weaken the steel, in the timeframe. I know it's a coupling/synergy effect with the impact + Heat - due to the fact that the impact would weaken it already - then add heat and the collapse (as you observed) happens where the impact is.

Most of my "objections" come more towards the preliminary events and the events afterwards due to the information control about that day - our departments in the gov't, and the intel.

With the ties to the bin laden family from the bush family, and the saudi's - i wonder how much intel was "ignored" due to the interest of business.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Re: explosions:

The eyewitnesses who described the explosions were inside the towers when they heard/felt the explosions. They described the explosions as coming from the floors above them in what sounded like a precisely-timed series.

And even if the collapses began at the point of impact, this still doesn't explain how both towers could collapse neatly and cleanly into their own footprints (like a controlled demolition.)

It has been pointed out that all of the steel support beams inside the buildings would have had to collapse simultaneously for this to happen.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Re: explosions:

The eyewitnesses who described the explosions were inside the towers when they heard/felt the explosions. They described the explosions as coming from the floors above them in what sounded like a precisely-timed series.

And even if the collapses began at the point of impact, this still doesn't explain how both towers could collapse neatly and cleanly into their own footprints (like a controlled demolition.)

It has been pointed out that all of the steel support beams inside the buildings would have had to collapse simultaneously for this to happen.Read below. I've built steel super structures for most of my entire adult life. I know why they stand and why they fall down.
Please try and inform yourself.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html)
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso v

[Rohirrim]

That's the reports i got as well from watching info that was taped that day. I have no doubts the towers fell due to the planes hitting them. I figure with the impact (speed/weight, fuel, etc) - that would be alot of sress for almost any building to handle. A small prop plane would have had no problems taking a hit of that magnitude.

I just want to know some of the things as to how and why. Which is why wags "induction method" of air would allow someone to stand in the impact hole makes the most sense. I just wanted to know thaty from teh reports of heat, etc - how long it would really take to actually weaken the steel, in the timeframe. I know it's a coupling/synergy effect with the impact + Heat - due to the fact that the impact would weaken it already - then add heat and the collapse (as you observed) happens where the impact is.

Most of my "objections" come more towards the preliminary events and the events afterwards due to the information control about that day - our departments in the gov't, and the intel.

With the ties to the bin laden family from the bush family, and the saudi's - i wonder how much intel was "ignored" due to the interest of business.

One program I watched Tuesday was put together by engineers reconstructing what happened, minute by minute. They had very good animations, based on the evidence. When the south tower was hit, much of the jet fuel went down the elevators. Hence the reports from first responders of people "burned from head to foot" lying in the lobby. Also, as the burning fuel descended it lit various floors in the building on fire. It also makes sense that there would be little fire at the entry hole the jet made as the entire load of fuel and mass going hundreds of miles per hour would tend to come out the other side of the building, which is what the photos and videos show.

[alkemical]

One program I watched Tuesday was put together by engineers reconstructing what happened, minute by minute. They had very good animations, based on the evidence. When the south tower was hit, much of the jet fuel went down the elevators. Hence the reports from first responders of people "burned from head to foot" lying in the lobby. Also, as the burning fuel descended it lit various floors in the building on fire. It also makes sense that there would be little fire at the entry hole the jet made as the entire load of fuel and mass going hundreds of miles per hour would tend to come out the other side of the building, which is what the photos and videos show.


ahhh, gotchya - do you know the name of the program, maybe i can youtube/google video it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Read below. I've built steel super structures for most of my entire adult life. I know why they stand and why they fall down.
Please try and inform yourself.

If this is the case, then do you dispute the fact that a steel frame building had never collapsed due to fire alone before?

And, if by "inform yourself," you mean "restrict your reading to only those sources that back the official BushCo account of 9/11," then you and I both know that ain't gonna happen, amigo.

[Rohirrim]

ahhh, gotchya - do you know the name of the program, maybe i can youtube/google video it

No, I don't. I just sat there watching all the stuff they showed on Tuesday. But I assume it was on the History Channel. That's where I spent most of my time.

[Bronco Bob]

If this is the case, then do you dispute the fact that a steel frame building had never collapsed due to fire alone before?



Apples, oranges, pears, grapes, watermelons, figs, bananas.
Each steel frame building is different. Each fire is different.
If sometime in the future somewhere in the world were
to be hit with a jetliner loaded with fuel, would that
convince you that this is what brought down the WTC
building, or would you then nit-pick away that this
building was different.

And how do you explain how a friend of mine from New York
whose father worked in construction and who watched the
twin towers go up said he knew the building were going
to collapse as soon as he saw the fires.

[Bronco Bob]

good talkin points.if we're talking about bending steel however, why is it that both towers fell straight down as opposed to falling over?One maybe, but both?

Because they fell from the top down. The floors on the top fell on the
floors below them. So without an external force pushing on them,
each floor, by Newton's first law of motion, would have to fall straight down,
hit the floor below it, and that floor would fall straight down, until the
last floor collapsed.
When you see a tall structure such as a chimney collapse and
fall over, this is because they blow out the bottom off it
and they set the charges in such a way as to make it fall where
they want it to fall, similar to chopping down a tree where the
cut is made in the direction they want the tree to fall.

[Bronco Bob]

Why is this so hard to believe?

1) Because a steel frame building has never collapsed as a result of fire before.



There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour
and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load
sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core
removed by an airliner.

Why do you choose to ignore all these firsts and just concentrate on one single first? Your statement that the WTC buildings were the
first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is purposely deceptive because it doesn't take those factors into account. You accuse the
9/11 commission and the NIST of withholding information, and yet you are doing the very same thing, withholding information.

[Bronco Bob]

3) Because of the numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions on the lower levels before the collapse.


So how come no load explosions were heard in any of the audio
of the coverage of the collapse? Watch any video of a controlled
demolition that includes audio of the collapse. You will hear
numerous very loud, distinct explosions. I heard none of this
in any of the news coverage of the twin towers collapsing.
All I heard was the sound of building materials crashing into
each other and glass shattering. Now don't don't you think
if I could hear the glass shattering, I certainly could have
heard the sound of explosions from dynamite or cordite
or mini-nukes or whatever explosives you think Bushco used.

[W*GS]

So, LABF, you doubt the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports.

Are gaffney's ideas closer to the truth than either of the above?

[W*GS]

1) Because a steel frame building has never collapsed as a result of fire before.

The WTC didn't have just fires. You're neglecting the damage done by the plane impacts. Why?

2) Because of the improbability of both towers neatly collapsing into their own footprints (like a controlled demolition.)

Did both towers "neatly" collapse as you say? Show us. And "like a controlled demolition"? How so?

3) Because of the numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions on the lower levels before the collapse.

Does "explosion" (or, more accurately, sounds like explosions) mean "explosives"? How so?

You need to show that those sounds could only have come from explosives to being making your case. Care to try?

Yes, these things have been discussed ad nauseum. However, you're still at square one, because it's clear you think that such things are still valid points. Why?

[mhgaffney]

The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate the tower collapses themselves - NIST did.



Once again W*gs puts his foot in his mouth. His statement proves he never read the NIST report.

The NIST report says nothing about the WTC collapse. The NIST report examines the time frame from the moment of impact to the moment when the collapse began, Anyone who's read the report knows this.

In fact, this is one of the big flaws in the report.

The NIST makes no comment about the most controversial part of the event -- the actual collapse itself. The investigation was designed for failure --- just like the 911 Commission Report -- as Kean and Hamilton admitted in their recent book Without Predecent.

[mhgaffney]

yes, but the 9/11 report cites NIST work, does it not?



Come on Clav -- do some homework. The 911 Commision Report was released in July 2004. It does NOT cite the NIST report because the NIST report was not released until much later -- Sept 2005.

Get the basic facts right! OK?

There is no way to have a debate until everyone understands the basics.

This is our biggest problem: Americans prefer to cop out in front of the tube -- and never bother to read reports.

[mhgaffney]

Read below. I've built steel super structures for most of my entire adult life. I know why they stand and why they fall down.
Please try and inform yourself.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html)
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso v

How sweet.

Beerslugger posts Eager's pancake theory -- published in 2001 -- a theory later rejected by the NIST.

If Beerslugger had stopped swilling cold beers long enough to actually read the NIST report -- he would know this. But he didn't. DUHHH

Eager theorized that the trusses failed -- due to the fire. Then according to him the bolt connections came loose all the way around -- like a zipper.

Only it didn't happen. NIST's metallurgical tests showed that the bolts in the WTC exceeded specs by a wide margin. Moreover, there weren't only bolts - the connections were also welded!

What is more, the fire tests run by NIST showed that the trusses withstood the fires much better than expected. After 2-3 hour fire tests (longer than the WTC stood) - the trusses barely sagged at all -- only a few inches -- and in no case did they collapse.

In short -- NIST's preliminary test results did NOT support a collapse scenario.

Like I've been saying on this board. They had to resort to a computer simulation -- a black box that they tweaked -- without ever telling us how -- to reach the desired and pre arranged conclusion that the impacts/fires caused the collapse.

That's how it came down, whether you like it or not.

This is why one of the NIST scientists has recently gone public and has disputed the conclusions in the final report.

Never believe that one brave man cannot make a difference.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

How sweet.
Beerslugger posts Eager's pancake theory -- published in 2001 -- a theory later rejected by the NIST.
The more I read you the more obvious it is you are brain damaged or just plain mentally defective.
Anybody with access to TV knows exactly how those buildings fell down (top down). Your stupidity and nonsense in these fantasy conspiracy threads makes just about as credible as Bush and puts you in the same category intelligence wise. In fact, I'd say Bush is sharper than you are.

[alkemical]

Come on Clav -- do some homework. The 911 Commision Report was released in July 2004. It does NOT cite the NIST report because the NIST report was not released until much later -- Sept 2005.

Get the basic facts right! OK?

There is no way to have a debate until everyone understands the basics.

This is our biggest problem: Americans prefer to cop out in front of the tube -- and never bother to read reports.

nope i had my time frames wrong, in which the NIST report did not validate the 'pancake' theory (Per Nova's special). The trusses held for much longer than expected and they bowed, until it snapped the outer support columns due to the weight and load, so the trusses held, but the columns did not.

[mhgaffney]

Bronco Bob posted false information on this board -- when he claimed that steel begins to lose its strength at 250 C. Bullsh*t. That is wrong --

Steel begins to lose its strength at a much higher temp -- at 425 C --

And if you had read the NIST report -- you would know that only three steel samples out of 170 samples recovered from the WTC site reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees.

That is no scientific basis on which to argue that the heat from the fire weakened the steel columns.

Moreover, consider this. The NIST's method of determining temperature was to analyze the chemical change in the paint on the columns. So all of these temperatures were SURFACE temperatures. NIST had no way to determine the temperatures inside the columns.

This means that even the three samples that reached higher temperatures -- up to 600 C -- may well have been barely warm inside -- or even stone cold.

It takes a lot more heat -- and a much longer time than 1-2 hours -- to heat up giant columns of steel to the point where they weaken and give way.

Even then -- steel typically does not fail in a sudden fashion. Even when it warps, sags, and twists -- it still retains much of its strength. Steel tends to give way slowly -- in a gradual manner -- not in a sudden fashion.

It's why steel is a terrific building material. It has enormous reserves of strength.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It takes a lot more heat -- and a much longer time than 1-2 hours -- to heat up giant columns of steel to the point where they weaken and give way.
You are one ignorant paranoid fanatic. Your knowledge in this area rivals most elementary school children except that those kids are smart enough to not make fools out of themselves spouting this kind of ignorant tripe.

[W*GS]

Once again W*gs puts his foot in his mouth. His statement proves he never read the NIST report.

Wrong - but I did make a mistake.

The 9/11 Commission did not investigate the damage done to the WTC from the plane impacts and the fires. NIST did. NIST did investigate what happened from the moment of the plane impacts to the moment the collapse began.

The NIST makes no comment about the most controversial part of the event -- the actual collapse itself.

What's "controversial" about that short time period?

Or are you referring to the "the towers fell into their footprint, so controlled demolition took place" versus the "heavy debris was ejected hundreds of feet, so controlled demolition took place" 9/11 truther "controversy"?

[mhgaffney]

nope i had my time frames wrong, in which the NIST report did not validate the 'pancake' theory (Per Nova's special). The trusses held for much longer than expected and they bowed, until it snapped the outer support columns due to the weight and load, so the trusses held, but the columns did not.

You are talking abot the perimeter columns, correct?

I agree. Photos of the towers showed that the outer wall was indeed deformed -- due to the impacts and damage to several trusses, probably also caused by the impacts.

The fires probably had nil effect on this.

But even if the outer wall buckled -- why would this cause a general collapse? Remember, there were 47 enormous core columns. Only a few of these were severed by the plane impacts.

The NIST had zero information about conditions in the core. Yet we know that NYC firemen reached the 79th floor of the south tower a few minutes before it collapsed -- and found only a few scattered fires. No raging inferno. The firemen were confident about putting out the few fires. They called for hoses to be brought up.

In its report the NIST admits that the fuels in the core were nil. It was mostly steel and concrete -- few burnables. This is consistent with what the firemen found. So how did the massive core columns all fail at once?

After I posted my critique of the NIST report -- I heard from several firemen. One told me that all of the NYC firemen that he personally knows are convinced from their experience on 911 that bombs brought the towers down. More than 100 of the testimonials now posted at the NYTimes website -- are from NYC firemen and other responders who heard, felt and saw the explosions INSIDE the towers. More than 100 testimonials.

I heard from another retired fireman -- who told me that in his 20 + year career he never saw a general collapse of any building. He saw partial collapses -- asymmetric collapses -- never a total collapse.

Even if the outer perimeter wall had failed -- the towers would have mostly stood. It would have been an ugly asymetrical collapse.

A global collapse is the signature of a demolition. And despite what beerslugger says -- it doesn't matter where it starts. A skilled demolition expert can take down a building a dozen different ways. There is no one way to do it.

[mhgaffney]

So how come no load explosions were heard in any of the audio
of the coverage of the collapse? Watch any video of a controlled
demolition that includes audio of the collapse. You will hear
numerous very loud, distinct explosions. I heard none of this
in any of the news coverage of the twin towers collapsing.
All I heard was the sound of building materials crashing into
each other and glass shattering. Now don't don't you think
if I could hear the glass shattering, I certainly could have
heard the sound of explosions from dynamite or cordite
or mini-nukes or whatever explosives you think Bushco used.

I suggest you get a copy of Richard Siegel's film 911 Eyewitness.

Siegel lives in Hoboken -- across the Hudson River from Manhattan. On 911 he set up a camera on a tripod on the waterfront -- and filmed the burning towers and both collapses.

His film includes audio -- and you can easily hear the huge blasts that ripped through the towers before they fell. These were enormous explosions -- easily heard from more than a mile away -- across the water.

There was a series of big explosions -- in each case. After one of these -- about 30 seconds before the south tower fell -- you can see a cloud of dust rising from the level of the street -- indicating that the explosion was deep in the basement -- underground.

These extremely strong well built buildings had to be pre weakened -- in order to bring them down. This is what Siegel captured on film -- with audio.

Google 911 eyewitness and order a copy. Do it tonight.

[alkemical]

You are talking abot the perimeter columns, correct?

I agree. Photos of the towers showed that the outer wall was indeed deformed -- due to the impacts and damage to several trusses, probably also caused by the impacts.

The fires probably had nil effect on this.

But even if the outer wall buckled -- why would this cause a general collapse? Remember, there were 47 enormous core columns. Only a few of these were severed by the plane impacts.

The NIST had zero information about conditions in the core. Yet we know that NYC firemen reached the 79th floor of the south tower a few minutes before it collapsed -- and found only a few scattered fires. No raging inferno. The firemen were confident about putting out the few fires. They called for hoses to be brought up.

In its report the NIST admits that the fuels in the core were nil. It was mostly steel and concrete -- few burnables. This is consistent with what the firemen found. So how did the massive core columns all fail at once?

After I posted my critique of the NIST report -- I heard from several firemen. One told me that all of the NYC firemen that he personally knows are convinced from their experience on 911 that bombs brought the towers down. More than 100 of the testimonials now posted at the NYTimes website -- are from NYC firemen and other responders who heard, felt and saw the explosions INSIDE the towers. More than 100 testimonials.

I heard from another retired fireman -- who told me that in his 20 + year career he never saw a general collapse of any building. He saw partial collapses -- asymmetric collapses -- never a total collapse.

Even if the outer perimeter wall had failed -- the towers would have mostly stood. It would have been an ugly asymetrical collapse.

A global collapse is the signature of a demolition. And despite what beerslugger says -- it doesn't matter where it starts. A skilled demolition expert can take down a building a dozen different ways. There is no one way to do it.



Yes, the outer support columns - Well in the nova program - the Top of the WTC's were like a "cap" to tie in all the supports together - so when that gave way, the weight was distributed onto the rest of the columns. With all the weight, it couldn't take the collapse of the top of the towers and still remain intact. (kinetic energy released)

The plane was travelling at what, 500+ MPH? If so, the weight of the plane would be muliplied. So it wouldn 't just be the weight of the plane - you'd still have to deal with fire.

If it were only a "massive fire" the towers more than likley would not have fell. If it would have been a small single engine prop plane, damage would have been minimal.

The nova special outlined that the engineers used a spray on fire-retardant - which was knocked off on the impact points - exposing the steel to the fire. I forget where i read it, but they estimate the fire was at 800deg/C - that's pretty damned hot.

It's true even the NIST states that they have no real metric of testing this, and part of me feels that insead of a pesky war - i'd be down with building a "shell" building that fit the specs and actually flying a plane into it to see how it worked out.

[mhgaffney]

One program I watched Tuesday was put together by engineers reconstructing what happened, minute by minute. They had very good animations, based on the evidence. When the south tower was hit, much of the jet fuel went down the elevators. Hence the reports from first responders of people "burned from head to foot" lying in the lobby. Also, as the burning fuel descended it lit various floors in the building on fire. It also makes sense that there would be little fire at the entry hole the jet made as the entire load of fuel and mass going hundreds of miles per hour would tend to come out the other side of the building, which is what the photos and videos show.

No. There was no way the jet fuel could have reached the lobby. To reach the lobby of the WTC from the high floors you had to change elevators --

Moreover -- jet fuel cannot explain why the explosions began in the basement of WTC 1 BEFORE Fl 11 even hit ther building.

All of which means the blasts in the basement and lobby were caused by bombs -- not jet fuel.

[W*GS]

But even if the outer wall buckled -- why would this cause a general collapse? Remember, there were 47 enormous core columns. Only a few of these were severed by the plane impacts.

As the interior columns were damaged by the plane impacts, and the trusses connecting them to the perimeter columns were sagging and pulling inward on both sets, loads sufficient to cause collapse occurred.

So how did the massive core columns all fail at once?

They didn't. Watch the videos of both towers' collapses again. Significant pieces of the cores of both buildings were standing for a time before they too collapsed.

After I posted my critique of the NIST report -- I heard from several firemen. One told me that all of the NYC firemen that he personally knows are convinced from their experience on 911 that bombs brought the towers down. More than 100 of the testimonials now posted at the NYTimes website -- are from NYC firemen and other responders who heard, felt and saw the explosions INSIDE the towers. More than 100 testimonials.

Like I told LABF, "explosions" does not equal "explosives". Besides, why would these firefighters keep quiet about what "really" happened - which cost the lives of hundreds of their fellows? Their jobs? Give me a ****ing break.

A global collapse is the signature of a demolition.

Nope.

[W*GS]

No. There was no way the jet fuel could have reached the lobby. To reach the lobby of the WTC from the high floors you had to change elevators

Elevator shafts were not the only means by which flaming jet fuel could have reached the lobby.

Moreover -- jet fuel cannot explain why the explosions began in the basement of WTC 1 BEFORE Fl 11 even hit ther building.

Who says that there were explosions before the plane impact? A name, please.

[mhgaffney]

Yes, the outer support columns - Well in the nova program - the Top of the WTC's were like a "cap" to tie in all the supports together - so when that gave way, the weight was distributed onto the rest of the columns. With all the weight, it couldn't take the collapse of the top of the towers and still remain intact. (kinetic energy released)

The plane was travelling at what, 500+ MPH? If so, the weight of the plane would be muliplied. So it wouldn 't just be the weight of the plane - you'd still have to deal with fire.

If it were only a "massive fire" the towers more than likley would not have fell. If it would have been a small single engine prop plane, damage would have been minimal.

The nova special outlined that the engineers used a spray on fire-retardant - which was knocked off on the impact points - exposing the steel to the fire. I forget where i read it, but they estimate the fire was at 800deg/C - that's pretty damned hot.

It's true even the NIST states that they have no real metric of testing this, and part of me feels that insead of a pesky war - i'd be down with building a "shell" building that fit the specs and actually flying a plane into it to see how it worked out.

You mean the hat truss.

But the buckling was only on one side -- and maybe a part of a second side. So at most only a part of the outer wall gave way.

The perimeter wall supported about half of the weight. The core columns had a safety factor of 2.1 -- meaning they could support more than twice the anticipated load. No way does this generate a global collapse. There was reserve strength to spare.

The fire retardant material was only knocked lose in the impact zone. This means that most of the columns were stone cold -- no impact damage and no loss of strength due to fire --

Moreover, according to Kevin Ryan, the former manager at Underwriter Labs, the steel columns used in the WTC were tested at UL -- and could withstand 1,000 C fire even without the protective coating -- for several hours. No way does this equate to a global collapse.

As for the impacts -- consider: If you have a mosquito netting, what difference does it make if you fire a bullet through it -- or stick a pencil through it? Either way -- you will damage only a few parts of the mesh -- and the net will remain intact.

In other words, the kinetic energy of the plane is less important than many people think. In any event, much of the kinetic energy was absorbed by the outer wall and by the concrete/steel truss floors -- before the engines and fuselage reached the core.

Check out this photo of the pentagon -- before the roof caved. You can see that most of the outer columns are still intact. Even after a direct hit of a 500 mph Boeing 757 -- with no perimeter wall or concrete/steel trusses and floors to absorb the impact.

http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/5.html

[Rohirrim]

No. There was no way the jet fuel could have reached the lobby. To reach the lobby of the WTC from the high floors you had to change elevators --

Moreover -- jet fuel cannot explain why the explosions began in the basement of WTC 1 BEFORE Fl 11 even hit ther building.

All of which means the blasts in the basement and lobby were caused by bombs -- not jet fuel.

From the diagrams, it looked as though there were multiple elevators in a single, stepped shaft.

Odd that you think there were explosions in the basement before an aircraft hit the building. The testimony of first responders who set up in the lobby didn't mention anything about an explosion in the basement. You'd think one of the firemen, policemen, emergency workers, or one of the hundreds of people who worked in the basement floors would have mentioned that an explosion went off in the basement BEFORE the aircraft hit. You'd think there would have been injuries of one kind or another.

[Bronco Bob]

Bronco Bob posted false information on this board -- when he claimed that steel begins to lose its strength at 250 C. Bullsh*t. That is wrong --




Once again Gaffney posts lies and then attributes these lies to someone else.
No, Mark, I never said steel begins to lose it strength at 250 C.
I told you how to do an experiment to see how temperature affects
the strength of steel. But instead of doing that you are content to
just keep on spreading lies. You have been posting lies every since
you came on this board.

[Bronco Bob]

I suggest you get a copy of Richard Siegel's film 911 Eyewitness.

Siegel lives in Hoboken -- across the Hudson River from Manhattan. On 911 he set up a camera on a tripod on the waterfront -- and filmed the burning towers and both collapses.

His film includes audio -- and you can easily hear the huge blasts that ripped through the towers before they fell. These were enormous explosions -- easily heard from more than a mile away -- across the water.

There was a series of big explosions -- in each case. After one of these -- about 30 seconds before the south tower fell -- you can see a cloud of dust rising from the level of the street -- indicating that the explosion was deep in the basement -- underground.

These extremely strong well built buildings had to be pre weakened -- in order to bring them down. This is what Siegel captured on film -- with audio.

Google 911 eyewitness and order a copy. Do it tonight.

Why do I need your lying friend Siegel's doctored up film? I watched
the towers collapse on TV the day it happened, Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
And the audio was good enough to hear the glass shattering, which
wouldn't be nearly as loud as explosions, and I heard no explosions.
I have also seen films of controlled demolitions, so I know the
difference between the sound of glass shattering and explosives.

[alkemical]

You mean the hat truss.

But the buckling was only on one side -- and maybe a part of a second side. So at most only a part of the outer wall gave way.

The perimeter wall supported about half of the weight. The core columns had a safety factor of 2.1 -- meaning they could support more than twice the anticipated load. No way does this generate a global collapse. There was reserve strength to spare.

The fire retardant material was only knocked lose in the impact zone. This means that most of the columns were stone cold -- no impact damage and no loss of strength due to fire --

Moreover, according to Kevin Ryan, the former manager at Underwriter Labs, the steel columns used in the WTC were tested at UL -- and could withstand 1,000 C fire even without the protective coating -- for several hours. No way does this equate to a global collapse.

As for the impacts -- consider: If you have a mosquito netting, what difference does it make if you fire a bullet through it -- or stick a pencil through it? Either way -- you will damage only a few parts of the mesh -- and the net will remain intact.

In other words, the kinetic energy of the plane is less important than many people think. In any event, much of the kinetic energy was absorbed by the outer wall and by the concrete/steel truss floors -- before the engines and fuselage reached the core.

Check out this photo of the pentagon -- before the roof caved. You can see that most of the outer columns are still intact. Even after a direct hit of a 500 mph Boeing 757 -- with no perimeter wall or concrete/steel trusses and floors to absorb the impact.

http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/5.html

the netting doesn't support weight though and if you have a tear, the tear will get bigger if you pull oni t.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Holy mackerel!

Mark is schooling you guys who are still trying to defend the BushCo account of what happened on 9/11.

[W*GS]

Holy mackerel!

Mark is schooling you guys who are still trying to defend the BushCo account of what happened on 9/11.

Beg pardon? He's throwing out half-truths, distortions, and outright lies, and you support him?

I've asked you many times whom you think is closer to the truth of 9/11 - gaffney or the 9/11 Commission. By your comments above, it sure sounds like you're a part of his tinfoil hat brigade...

That's not really a surprise - you're a gullible sort. You fell for Chavez' propaganda completely; you couldn't even acknowledge what a load of bull**** that was.

Your hatred for Bush has blinded you to reality. That's too bad. Makes me wonder for whom you'll fall next - rather scary, actually.

[W*GS]

I suggest you get a copy of Richard Siegel's film 911 Eyewitness.

Even some of the 9/11 truthers don't think much of Siegel's nonsense:

http://www.911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Holy mackerel!

Mark is schooling you guys who are still trying to defend the BushCo account of what happened on 9/11.He is not schooling anyone and you are a fool for thinking otherwise. His ignorance on steel structures and metal properties is more than lacking, it's completely erroneous in most every area.

[Bronco Bob]

Holy mackerel!

Mark is schooling you guys who are still trying to defend the BushCo account of what happened on 9/11.

Sort of like how Bush schooled the country last Wednesday on the success in Iraq.
If you call lying, distorting facts, and making up stuff schooling.

[Bronco Bob]

Even some of the 9/11 truthers don't think much of Siegel's nonsense:

http://www.911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html

And yet LABF and Gaffney eat this stuff up like slop fed to hogs, and
call us sheep for not beleiving it. What's the odds of either of them
going to that link, reading the whole thing, and then coming back here
and offering a coherent repudiation of the points raised? Most likely
we'll just hear a whine that this site is part of the conspiracy or
some other such nonsense without addressing any of the points made.

[Rohirrim]

Holy mackerel!

Mark is schooling you guys who are still trying to defend the BushCo account of what happened on 9/11.

Bushco account? I thought the Bushco account was that Saddam did it? Anyway, that's what they've been telling the American people for six years. Don't accuse me of trying to convince any true believers that no conspiracy occurred. That would be like trying to talk somebody out of their religion. I'm just not that persuasive. I'm just trying to figure out the logic of their arguments. Of course, as with any religion, logic doesn't apply. ;D

[ant1999e]

If this is the case, then do you dispute the fact that a steel frame building had never collapsed due to fire alone before?

And, if by "inform yourself," you mean "restrict your reading to only those sources that back the official BushCo account of 9/11," then you and I both know that ain't gonna happen, amigo.

LABF's problem is his hatred for bush has blinded him so much that he would actually agree with gaff on anything if it accused "Bushco" of doing something wrong.

[W*GS]

If this is the case, then do you dispute the fact that a steel frame building had never collapsed due to fire alone before?

None of the WTC that collapsed suffered only fire damage. You've got a faulty premise. As usual.

See also:

http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's the odds of either of them
going to that link, reading the whole thing, and then coming back here
and offering a coherent repudiation of the points raised?

Far greater than the odds of you or any of the other apologists for the BushCo account reading or refuting the facts and analysis Mark presented in his last three or four posts. Face it - he owns you guys!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF's problem is his hatred for bush has blinded him so much that he would actually agree with gaff on anything if it accused "Bushco" of doing something wrong.

Your problem is that you dismiss just about any criticism of this administration as a simple case of blind hatred.

That's why you have practically zero credibility here (given the administration's track record.)

[W*GS]

Far greater than the odds of you or any of the other apologists for the BushCo account reading or refuting the facts and analysis Mark presented in his last three or four posts. Face it - he owns you guys!

You're not real big on reading comprehension, are you?

The only thing gaffney "owns" around here is the Tinfoiliest Hat Award...

[W*GS]

Your problem is that you dismiss just about any criticism of this administration as a simple case of blind hatred.

That may be true, but your support of gaffney's whackitude is strictly because of your blind hatred of the Bush administration. It certainly isn't based on facts, reason, or logic.

[ant1999e]

Your problem is that you dismiss just about any criticism of this administration as a simple case of blind hatred.

That's why you have practically zero credibility here (given the administration's track record.)

And this is all thanks to you "The little boy who cried wolf". You blame him for everything and that is why you have "practically zero credibility here". I'm sure your little rant on this thread just solidified this fact.:kiss:

[Bronco Bob]

Far greater than the odds of you or any of the other apologists for the BushCo account reading or refuting the facts and analysis Mark presented in his last three or four posts. Face it - he owns you guys!

The only person Mark owns here is you. He pulls your stings and you dance his tune.

[The Lone Bolt]

Far greater than the odds of you or any of the other apologists for the BushCo account reading or refuting the facts and analysis Mark presented in his last three or four posts. Face it - he owns you guys!

:loopy:

[Rohirrim]

The strangest thing about this is that I saw it with my own eyes, but these people are trying to tell me that my eyes were lying. It feels like I'm in an episode of Lost. I just watched some of the film again tonight on MSNBC. There was no explosion in the basement. (This, in itself, is a ludicrous argument. Had the first explosions happened in the basement, you would expect the buiilding to tip one way or another, wouldn't you?) Once again, the collapse began at the exact point where the jets impacted the buildings, ie. the weakest point. You can watch the massive exhalations of debris as the floors pancake down, floor after floor.

Every argument they bring up is beyond the pale. Bush did it? Bush is the most incompetent president in history. He's like the reverse Midas. Everything he touches turns to ****. And why did he do it? So he could invade Iraq? He could have simply used Saddam's violations of the sanctions to invade Iraq, and he would have, if 911 hadn't happened. It's not like Congress would have stopped him, eh?

Gaffer makes these outlandish claims and then says, "You have to prove them false." Why? Millions of people saw two planes fly into the WTC and set them ablaze. After burning for many tens of minutes, they saw the buildings collapse beginning right at the point of impact. They believe that the jet impacts caused the collapse of the buildings. They believe that the people who claimed responsibility for the attack, actually did it. They believe that film of the hijackers in the airports are real. They believe KSM is telling the truth. They believe that Bin Laden happily boasting of Al Queda's responsibility is real.

So the Gaffs of the world would tell us what we have here is a false confession. Then supply us with the real culprit.

In science, if you are going to make outlandish claims against established fact, you have to prove them true. It's not enough to simply say, "Well, it might be like this, or maybe this happened." You must prove it. The intensity of your zealotry is not proof.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And this is all thanks to you "The little boy who cried wolf".

:giggle: Oh, the irony...

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-kool-aid06.jpg


You blame him for everything and that is why you have "practically zero credibility here"

Zero credibility with whom?

Bush Kool-Aid guzzlers like you?

Guilty as charged. :thumbs:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The only person Mark owns here is you. He pulls your stings and you dance his tune.

Hey man, I'm just callin' 'em like I see 'em here.

You guys try to write Gaffney off like he's some kind of paranoid nutjob when, in fact, the guy has clearly done more research on this subject than anyone here and has exposed a number of holes, inconsistencies, and outright lies in the official BushCo account of what happened on 9/11.

IMO, people who claim that none of the 9/11 truthers' claims have any validity or any basis in fact are just as extreme and just as closed-minded as the "conspiracy nuts" who get hammered around here.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hey man, I'm just callin' 'em like I see 'em here.

You guys try to write Gaffney off like he's some kind of paranoid nutjob when, in fact, the guy has clearly done more research on this subject than anyone here and has exposed a number of holes, inconsistencies, and outright lies in the official BushCo account of what happened on 9/11.

IMO, people who claim that none of the 9/11 truthers' claims have any validity or any basis in fact are just as extreme and just as closed-minded as the "conspiracy nuts" who get hammered around here.He pretty much is and the kind of research he has done is no more than parroting Internet wackjobs. That you continue to support his nonsense doesn't bode well for your decision making skills.

[W*GS]

Hey man, I'm just callin' 'em like I see 'em here.

You need new glasses.

You guys try to write Gaffney off like he's some kind of paranoid nutjob when, in fact, the guy has clearly done more research on this subject than anyone here and has exposed a number of holes, inconsistencies, and outright lies in the official BushCo account of what happened on 9/11.

What "holes, inconsistencies and outright lies" has gaffney "exposed"?

Please provide a list. Thanks!

[Rohirrim]

Well, at least Gaff isn't standing around at Ground Zero taunting grieving families. That's what I saw last week. Here are firemen and cops grieving their fallen comrades and there are whackos shouting about how the government killed their buddies, their brothers, fathers, mothers, etc. It reminded me of the whack job preacher who goes to funerals of soldiers and screams at the families that their sons deserved to die for supporting this "homosexual loving government." At least I hope Gaff isn't doing that. Of course, he's doing the same thing. He's just doing it on the internet where he doesn't have to confront the grief. Rubbing salt in the wound with his perverse fanatacism, and (as Bill Maher points out below) his narcissism.

[R8RH8R]

I just can't buy this "government cover-up" theory for a litany of reason, chiefly this reason- the last guy in office couldn't cover up a knobber he got from a fat intern, and I'm supposed to believe that the "idiot" in the White House as he's called by many in the country orchestrated the biggest terror attack in the world on his own country? With a hostile partisan Congress on his every move?There are so many holes in this "theory" , I couldn't begin to get into them. Do I believe our government(both parties) was negligent in protecting US citizens from attack? Absolutely! Do I think for a second they were behind it? Not a chance. Any cover-up has to do with playing CYA by lazy, inept politicians. Gotta love conspiracy nuts though-they're consistent,even if deluded.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOljd9oOzo

This is great. Maher knocks it out of the park. "How activism becomes narcissism." Ha!

Is Paxil right for you? :welcome:

[mhgaffney]

From the diagrams, it looked as though there were multiple elevators in a single, stepped shaft.

Odd that you think there were explosions in the basement before an aircraft hit the building. The testimony of first responders who set up in the lobby didn't mention anything about an explosion in the basement. You'd think one of the firemen, policemen, emergency workers, or one of the hundreds of people who worked in the basement floors would have mentioned that an explosion went off in the basement BEFORE the aircraft hit. You'd think there would have been injuries of one kind or another.

Check out 911 Mysteries (part one: the demolition)

IMO it's the best 911 video.

You can easily find it by googling -- and it will cost you maybe $10-15. You might even be able to find it posted on the web -- viewable for free -- if you have broad band.

The video includes interviews with WTC custodians, incl Wllliam Rodriguez, who were in the basement of WTC 1 and describe the explosions that wiped out a machine shop and a parking garage -- BEFORE Fl 11 hit the upper tower. There are multiple witnesses -- to this. People were badly injured -- even killed in these pre-explosions, which no doubt were designed to weaken the WTC.

Keep in mind that responders did not arrive until AFTER the initial impacts -- hence would not have been present for these early explosions.

I believe the sesmic record picked up these early explosions. The official story is that the seismic record shows the plane hits -- but I doubt this. Why would an impact 80+ stories up register a seismic spike? That dog don't hunt.

[mhgaffney]

Even some of the 9/11 truthers don't think much of Siegel's nonsense:

http://www.911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html

W*gs makes reference here to Jim Hoffman's stinging critique of the Siegel video.

I have to say -- while I often agree with Hoffman -- he was way out of line in his attack on Rick Siegel. There is no reason to doubt that the Siegel video is bona fide.

I agree that Siegel made some mistakes in the way he presented the video -- and maybe in the way he analyzed it --- but the raw footage he captured on 911 speaks for itself. It is powerful evidence that the towers were demolished.

Everyone should watch this video. If you acquire the other one I recommended -- 911 Mysteries -- we will see most of it, because the people who made 911 Mysteries understood its importance and included it.

But of course W*gs never watched either one. He and Bronco Bob are alike in this way. They both love to run off at the mouth -- pretending that they know something -- but don't take the the time or trouble to check out the evidence -- see the video or read the report -- whatever.

Why does no one - except LABN and me -- police these bastards -- and keep 'em honest? Too many boozers and losers on board, apparently.

[mhgaffney]

The strangest thing about this is that I saw it with my own eyes, but these people are trying to tell me that my eyes were lying. It feels like I'm in an episode of Lost. I just watched some of the film again tonight on MSNBC. There was no explosion in the basement. (This, in itself, is a ludicrous argument. Had the first explosions happened in the basement, you would expect the buiilding to tip one way or another, wouldn't you?) Once again, the collapse began at the exact point where the jets impacted the buildings, ie. the weakest point. You can watch the massive exhalations of debris as the floors pancake down, floor after floor.

Every argument they bring up is beyond the pale. Bush did it? Bush is the most incompetent president in history. He's like the reverse Midas. Everything he touches turns to ****. And why did he do it? So he could invade Iraq? He could have simply used Saddam's violations of the sanctions to invade Iraq, and he would have, if 911 hadn't happened. It's not like Congress would have stopped him, eh?

Gaffer makes these outlandish claims and then says, "You have to prove them false." Why? Millions of people saw two planes fly into the WTC and set them ablaze. After burning for many tens of minutes, they saw the buildings collapse beginning right at the point of impact. They believe that the jet impacts caused the collapse of the buildings. They believe that the people who claimed responsibility for the attack, actually did it. They believe that film of the hijackers in the airports are real. They believe KSM is telling the truth. They believe that Bin Laden happily boasting of Al Queda's responsibility is real.

So the Gaffs of the world would tell us what we have here is a false confession. Then supply us with the real culprit.

In science, if you are going to make outlandish claims against established fact, you have to prove them true. It's not enough to simply say, "Well, it might be like this, or maybe this happened." You must prove it. The intensity of your zealotry is not proof.


It is not surprising there is no video evidence of the first explosions -- which happened BEFORE the first plane impact. No one was watching -=- no one was fiming -- until later.

The cameras only started rolling AFTER the first plane impact -- when people in NYC -- and the national news -- began to watch the burning towers.

The purpose of the basement explosions was to weaken the buildings -- not bring them down right away. Carefully placed bombs would not have tiped the towers -- but weakened them in the core --- so they would collapse into themselves.

Regarding your statement about the point of initiation -- again -- there is nothing surprising here. Have you forgotten that you live in the computer age? A simple program on a lap top computer could easily have controlled the demolition. With a few keystrokes the perpetrators could have selected any floor they wanted for the initiation --

A radio signal was probably sent -- to start the sequence -- pick any floor you like -- simple as that.

I believe you suffer from a lack of imagination. But don't feel bad. You are not alone. Many people can't wrap their minds around something this big and this evil.

As for outlandish claims -- have you forgotten what Carl Sagan said? The truly extraordinary claim is the assertion that fires and plane impacts brought down both towers. Why? Because there are no precedents.

The burden of proof was on the NIST-- and they failed to present a convincing case. Simple as that.

[W*GS]

The video includes interviews with WTC custodians, incl Wllliam Rodriguez, who were in the basement of WTC 1 and describe the explosions that wiped out a machine shop and a parking garage -- BEFORE Fl 11 hit the upper tower. There are multiple witnesses -- to this. People were badly injured -- even killed in these pre-explosions, which no doubt were designed to weaken the WTC.

gaffney, address the multiple points raised in the following:

http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

I believe the sesmic record picked up these early explosions.

Are you a seismologist now?

The official story is that the seismic record shows the plane hits -- but I doubt this. Why would an impact 80+ stories up register a seismic spike? That dog don't hunt.

What happened to the rest of either tower immediately following the plane impacts? Was the remainder of the building completely rigid and didn't oscillate in any way? What's the release of energy into the ground from a 1350' tower swaying from the impact of a large jetliner?

[W*GS]

The cameras only started rolling AFTER the first plane impact -- when people in NYC -- and the national news -- began to watch the burning towers.

Actually, two videos exist of the first plane impact.

A radio signal was probably sent -- to start the sequence -- pick any floor you like -- simple as that.

Let's assume that each floor was wired separately - so that the damage from the plane impacts and the fires wouldn't make the preplanted explosives inoperable. How was this accomplished, and by whom, and when? How was this wiring of literally hundreds of floors kept secret from the thousands of people who were in the buildings daily? What about the building maintenance, security, and janitorial staffs? Would they have noticed anything amiss?

I believe you suffer from a lack of imagination.

As for anyone "suffering" around here - it's you, with your utter lack of logic, reason, and proof.

The burden of proof was on the NIST-- and they failed to present a convincing case. Simple as that.

You're nowhere near expert enough in any realm related to the matter to offer a judgement on whether or not NIST made a case. By any measure.

[W*GS]

But of course W*gs never watched either one. He and Bronco Bob are alike in this way. They both love to run off at the mouth -- pretending that they know something -- but don't take the the time or trouble to check out the evidence -- see the video or read the report -- whatever.

I've read the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report. I don't care to waste my time on ridiculous propaganda ****.

Why does no one - except LABN and me -- police these bastards -- and keep 'em honest? Too many boozers and losers on board, apparently.

You're mentally deranged, bub.

Are you hoping for some sort of reward for being the "hero" that figured out what happened on 9/11, or some other load of crap?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As for outlandish claims -- have you forgotten what Carl Sagan said? The truly extraordinary claim is the assertion that fires and plane impacts brought down both towers. Why? Because there are no precedents.

Exactly.

However, according to these guys' reasoning, Carl Sagan is a tin foil hat-wearing nutjob.

The burden of proof was on the NIST-- and they failed to present a convincing case. Simple as that.

That really is the bottom line.

The proponents of the official BushCo account seem to forget about the whole burden of proof thing.

[Rohirrim]

It is not surprising there is no video evidence of the first explosions -- which happened BEFORE the first plane impact. No one was watching -=- no one was fiming -- until later.

The cameras only started rolling AFTER the first plane impact -- when people in NYC -- and the national news -- began to watch the burning towers.

The purpose of the basement explosions was to weaken the buildings -- not bring them down right away. Carefully placed bombs would not have tiped the towers -- but weakened them in the core --- so they would collapse into themselves.

Regarding your statement about the point of initiation -- again -- there is nothing surprising here. Have you forgotten that you live in the computer age? A simple program on a lap top computer could easily have controlled the demolition. With a few keystrokes the perpetrators could have selected any floor they wanted for the initiation --

A radio signal was probably sent -- to start the sequence -- pick any floor you like -- simple as that.

I believe you suffer from a lack of imagination. But don't feel bad. You are not alone. Many people can't wrap their minds around something this big and this evil.

As for outlandish claims -- have you forgotten what Carl Sagan said? The truly extraordinary claim is the assertion that fires and plane impacts brought down both towers. Why? Because there are no precedents.

The burden of proof was on the NIST-- and they failed to present a convincing case. Simple as that.

We do have the radio conversations from the command centers set up by the first responders. At no time whatsoever does anybody, maintenance man or otherwise, walk up to one of those firemen who are swarming through both towers and say, "Gee, I'd just like to point out that there was an explosion in the basement before any of this other stuff happened." I'd also like to know when your supposed eyewitness said those basement explosions happened in relation to the plane impacts. I guarantee you, if the times are anywhere near each other what he is reporting is fuel pouring down the elevator shafts igniting other fires, and possibly, explosions. We know that secondary fires in WTC 7 set off diesel fuel tanks hooked to backup generators throughout the building.

From watching the tapes again Tuesday, and again last night, there is one thing that is abundantly clear; Nobody knew WTF was happening and there was massive misinformation being sent out at every level. Eyewitness reports were the most unreliable evidence that took place on that morning. Of course, professionals (investigators, detectives, etc.) usually consider eyewitness testimony the most unreliable of all types of evidence.

There are no precedents because no such thing ever happened, other than a B17 flying into the Empire State Building. Of course, that B17 was not carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel and was not traveling at over 500 mph. Also, the box construction of the Empire State Building in no way compares to the external frame construction of the WTC towers.

I don't have a lack of imagination. I just have the capacity to think critically. Nothing you have stated passes even the initial smell test. I refer you to the Bill Maher clip I posted above. In the final analysis, perhaps the simplest take is the best.

[W*GS]

That really is the bottom line.

The proponents of the official BushCo account seem to forget about the whole burden of proof thing.

Snicker. Have you read the NIST reports?

Then again, you haven't the balls to answer even the simplest questions. You're pretty much riding gaffney's coattails - but that's typical of lefties - others do the work, you play the parasite.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How funny is it to watch W*GS abandon his normal "government is the problem" dogma to argue that the government (the current administration in particular) should be trusted to investigate 9/11, that no independent investigation is warranted or necessary, and that the government's case is essentially infallible?

You can rest assured that W*GS would be singin' a whole 'nother tune had 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch.

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8453/therealhijackers6wq.jpg

[W*GS]

How funny is it to watch W*GS abandon his normal "government is the problem" dogma to argue that the government (the current administration in particular) should be trusted to investigate 9/11, that no independent investigation is warranted or necessary, and that the government's case is essentially infallible?

Do you try to make yourself look foolish, or does it come naturally?

And your standard resort to a personal attack when you've got nothing else to back you up is tiresome.

Facts are facts, and math is math, and physics is physics, no matter who's in charge. If Gore had been President in 2001, and the attacks took place as they did, the towers would have collapsed. No amount of political finagling changes equations...

But, your hatred of all things related to Bush, even remotely, greatly aids in you making an ass of yourself. Please, do go on.

Oh, and I'll quit asking whether or not you think the 9/11 Commission (and for that matter, NIST) are closer to the truth about 9/11 than gaffney is. You've made it quite clear that when it comes to 9/11 (at least!), you can wear a tinfoil hat as jauntily as gaffney can.

That still leaves you with the bitterness of that Chavez spunk you swallowed, however... Care to rationalize away your well-known stance?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS with the deflection attempt.

W*GS' message is "don't trust the government - except when it comes to investigating the worst attack on U.S. soil in history."

No independent investigation is warranted - just nod your heads and agree with the government's version (and analysis) of the facts and the resulting conclusions.

http://www.bartcop.com/kool-aid-kids.jpg

[W*GS]

W*GS with the deflection attempt.

Still got that salty Chavez spew gagging you, eh?

W*GS' message is "don't trust the government - except when it comes to investigating the worst attack on U.S. soil in history."

Wrong, but anything other than black-and-white thinking eludes you - always has.

No independent investigation is warranted - just nod your heads and agree with the government's version (and analysis) of the facts and the resulting conclusions.

That tinfoil hat is getting a bit tight, it appears.

Actually - my libertarian views work quite well against you and gaffney's MIHOP circle jerk. The government isn't competent enough to pull off 9/11 as the two of you allege...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Evaluation of facts and evidence has never been W*GS' strong suit.

There's a whole history of covert ops carried out by the CIA, et al, (often on a massive scale) against the governments of other countries - a history that flies in the face of the "incompetence" notion with which W*GS is bullsh*tting himself.

Funny - if you listen to W*GS, the government is anything but "incompetent" when it comes to tasks like investigating its own security failures (see his posts re: the 9/11 Commission.)

W*GS speaks with forked tongue.

(Cue another Chavez deflection.)

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2715/georgesays8wm8.jpg

[alkemical]

And your standard resort to a personal attack when you've got nothing else to back you up is tiresome.




HAHAHAHA! Oh irony is rich these days.

[alkemical]

Wrong, but anything other than black-and-white thinking eludes you - always has.




Actually - my libertarian views work quite well against you and gaffney's MIHOP circle jerk. The government isn't competent enough to pull off 9/11 as the two of you allege...


Again, more irony!

[W*GS]

Evaluation of facts and evidence has never been W*GS' strong suit.

Another morning guffaw... Have you truly looked at gaffney's claims? Even a cursory perusal will reveal how truly non-factual and non-evidential they are.

There's a whole history of covert ops carried out by the CIA, et al, (often on a massive scale) against the governments of other countries - a history that flies in the face of the "incompetence" notion with which W*GS is bullsh*tting himself.

Answer this - if the Bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks as you and gaffney believe, how come no WMDs were found in Iraq? Planting them would have been an incredibly trivial exercise compared to 9/11, yet they didn't. Why?

[Rohirrim]

Geez! Didn't anybody watch the Maher video?

[alkemical]

i did

[W*GS]

Geez! Didn't anybody watch the Maher video?

Just got around to it - quite funny. Good for a few chuckles.

[The Lone Bolt]

Check out 911 Mysteries (part one: the demolition)

IMO it's the best 911 video.

You can easily find it by googling -- and it will cost you maybe $10-15. You might even be able to find it posted on the web -- viewable for free -- if you have broad band.

The video includes interviews with WTC custodians, incl Wllliam Rodriguez, who were in the basement of WTC 1 and describe the explosions that wiped out a machine shop and a parking garage -- BEFORE Fl 11 hit the upper tower. There are multiple witnesses -- to this. People were badly injured -- even killed in these pre-explosions, which no doubt were designed to weaken the WTC.


Is this the same William Rodriguez seen here smiling and shaking Dubya's hand?

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/11/356685.jpg

So lemme get this straight . . . he "knows" right away that the gov't is behind the 9-11 attacks but afterward he smiles and poses with Dubya? :kiddingme

[The Lone Bolt]

Geez! Didn't anybody watch the Maher video?

Saw the video last night. Hysterical! I think Gaff needs to ask his physician if Paxil is right for him.:rofl: :rofl:

[R8RH8R]

Sad..just sad..These deranged lefty loons are the reason I left the Democratic party. It was hijacked by even scarier people with crazier ideas than theirs. Somehow, Bigfoot, Area 51 and Halliburton's hurricane-creating machine have to figure in to this massive plot. If the current clowns in government had no problem initiating 9/11 and invading Iraq, they's certainly have no compunctions about making tin-foil hat wearing jokers who could expose them simply "disappear" instead of just waiting to be "outed".

[Bronco Bob]

Sad..just sad..These deranged lefty loons are the reason I left the Democratic party. It was hijacked by even scarier people with crazier ideas than theirs. Somehow, Bigfoot, Area 51 and Halliburton's hurricane-creating machine have to figure in to this massive plot. If the current clowns in government had no problem initiating 9/11 and invading Iraq, they's certainly have no compunctions about making tin-foil hat wearing jokers who could expose them simply "disappear" instead of just waiting to be "outed".

Well I sure hope to hell when you left the Democratic party you didn't jump over
to the Republicans.

[R8RH8R]

Well I sure hope to hell when you left the Democratic party you didn't jump over
to the Republicans.

I did, but ain't happy there either. I've come to realize they ALL suck, and it's just a matter of who has their hand in your pocket. There are no good guys, and a whole lotta folks on both sides of the aisle are convinced that their guys are the good guys. The guy in there now is no worse a crook or liar than the last guy and no better. Am planning on changing to Libertarian. Will probably continue to vote on the conservative tip, though, Tired of subsidizing laziness.

[ant1999e]

I did, but ain't happy there either. I've come to realize they ALL suck, and it's just a matter of who has their hand in your pocket. There are no good guys, and a whole lotta folks on both sides of the aisle are convinced that their guys are the good guys. The guy in there now is no worse a crook or liar than the last guy and no better. Am planning on changing to Libertarian. Will probably continue to vote on the conservative tip, though, Tired of subsidizing laziness.

Rep

[mhgaffney]

We do have the radio conversations from the command centers set up by the first responders. At no time whatsoever does anybody, maintenance man or otherwise, walk up to one of those firemen who are swarming through both towers and say, "Gee, I'd just like to point out that there was an explosion in the basement before any of this other stuff happened." I'd also like to know when your supposed eyewitness said those basement explosions happened in relation to the plane impacts. I guarantee you, if the times are anywhere near each other what he is reporting is fuel pouring down the elevator shafts igniting other fires, and possibly, explosions. We know that secondary fires in WTC 7 set off diesel fuel tanks hooked to backup generators throughout the building.

From watching the tapes again Tuesday, and again last night, there is one thing that is abundantly clear; Nobody knew WTF was happening and there was massive misinformation being sent out at every level. Eyewitness reports were the most unreliable evidence that took place on that morning. Of course, professionals (investigators, detectives, etc.) usually consider eyewitness testimony the most unreliable of all types of evidence.

There are no precedents because no such thing ever happened, other than a B17 flying into the Empire State Building. Of course, that B17 was not carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel and was not traveling at over 500 mph. Also, the box construction of the Empire State Building in no way compares to the external frame construction of the WTC towers.

I don't have a lack of imagination. I just have the capacity to think critically. Nothing you have stated passes even the initial smell test. I refer you to the Bill Maher clip I posted above. In the final analysis, perhaps the simplest take is the best.


You are kidding, right?. Or are you on drugs?

William Rodriguez saved the lives of numerous people on 9/11. He helped a badly burned man out of WTC 1 -- then went back in to help others. A group of firemen were trapped in a stair well -- or maybe an elevator -- I'm not sure which -- and Rodriguez saved them -- because he was a custodian and had a key -- that opened a locked door and helped the men escape to safety.

Rodriguez was one of the last people out of the WTC alive before the collapse. The only reason he survived is because he dove under a fire engine -- which protected him from falling debris.

He testified for 1-2 hours before the 911 commission -- but not even a word of his eyewitness account about pre explosions is in the final report.

Why not? Well, consider this. co chair Lee Hamilton admitted in an interview last August on Canadian TV with Evan Solomon -- that he basically lost control over the 911 investigation. (See the link below.) He admitted that many issues -- were never brought to hs attention -- and were decided by the staffers -- whose director was Phil Zelikow, a neo con and close ally of GW Bush. Thus, Zelikow controlled the agenda, hence what was investigated -- and what was not. He also controlled the flow of information to the commissioners. And Zelikow also had contol over the preparation and editing of the final report.

Open your eyes. Apparently you are just another narcoleptic American -- in denial about about how far down our political culture has sunk.

Here's that link. In this interview Lee Hamilton fails to answer question after question -- and doesn't even know about the Pakistani intelligence cash flow to the alleged hijackers. No doubt, this pathetic individual was selected to "lead" the 911 Commisison because of his past obiesance to power.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

[W*GS]

William Rodriguez saved the lives of numerous people on 9/11. He helped a badly burned man out of WTC 1 -- then went back in to help others. A group of firemen were trapped in a stair well -- or maybe an elevator -- I'm not sure which -- and Rodriguez saved them -- because he was a custodian and had a key -- that opened a locked door and helped the men escape to safety.

Rodriguez was one of the last people out of the WTC alive before the collapse. The only reason he survived is because he dove under a fire engine -- which protected him from falling debris.

He testified for 1-2 hours before the 911 commission -- but not even a word of his eyewitness account about pre explosions is in the final report.

Rodriguez didn't use the word "explosions" until quite some time after 9/11 - before then, this is what he said:

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror

and

AARON BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: William Rodriguez (ph) is a maintenance worker at the Trade Center, I believe. In any case, he's on the phone with us now.

Mr. Rodriguez can you hear me?

WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, MAINTENANCE WORKER, TRADE CENTER: Yes, I can hear you now.

BROWN: Tell me where you were when -- which of those two buildings were you in?

RODRIGUEZ: I work in building one. The one that got hit the first time.

BROWN: Tell me what happened.

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin. [...]
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html

There's more material at

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

What say you, gaffney?

[mhgaffney]

Is this the same William Rodriguez seen here smiling and shaking Dubya's hand?

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/11/356685.jpg

So lemme get this straight . . . he "knows" right away that the gov't is behind the 9-11 attacks but afterward he smiles and poses with Dubya? :kiddingme

What world are you living in? Obviously, it is the world of spin and disinformation -- not the world of reality.

After 911 W. Rodriguez was lauded by the Bush White House as a hero -- and rightly so. As I noted -- he saved numerous lives.

It was only when the official cover story took hold and it became clear there would be no truth telling about what happened -- that Rodriguez began to speak out -- and he became persona non grata.

This happened with many other people also -- not just Rodriguez. A number of NYC firemen, for example, and other first responders lost ther jobs when they tried to tell the truth -- and refused to swallow the official lie -- about what happened.

[mhgaffney]

Rodriguez didn't use the word "explosions" until quite some time after 9/11 - before then, this is what he said:

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror

and

AARON BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: William Rodriguez (ph) is a maintenance worker at the Trade Center, I believe. In any case, he's on the phone with us now.

Mr. Rodriguez can you hear me?

WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, MAINTENANCE WORKER, TRADE CENTER: Yes, I can hear you now.

BROWN: Tell me where you were when -- which of those two buildings were you in?

RODRIGUEZ: I work in building one. The one that got hit the first time.

BROWN: Tell me what happened.

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin. [...]
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html

There's more material at

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

What say you, gaffney?

Check out the detailed and lengthy interview with Rodriguez and other WTC custodians in the film 911 MYSTERIES (PART ONE - THE DEMOLITION).

[W*GS]

If "explosions" took place, why did Rodriguez use "rumble"?

Do rumbles and explosions sound the same to you?

[W*GS]

It was only when the official cover story took hold and it became clear there would be no truth telling about what happened -- that Rodriguez began to speak out -- and he became persona non grata.

Rodriguez did "speak out" long before the "official cover story took hold" - and what he said isn't what you need him to have said to make your claims hold up. Too bad for you.

This happened with many other people also -- not just Rodriguez. A number of NYC firemen, for example, and other first responders lost ther jobs when they tried to tell the truth -- and refused to swallow the official lie -- about what happened.

Who are these people? How come they haven't spread the word far and wide that they were fired because they dare spoke the truth? How would firing a firefighter keep them from telling the truth, anyway?

You never think very far along when you make an argument.

[Rohirrim]

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror

To your average, reasonable person, this sure sounds like burning jet fuel came down the elevator shaft.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

for 1-2 hours before the 911 commission -- but not even a word of his eyewitness account about pre explosions is in the final report.

Why not? Well, consider this. co chair Lee Hamilton admitted in an interview last August on Canadian TV with Evan Solomon -- that he basically lost control over the 911 investigation. (See the link below.) He admitted that many issues -- were never brought to hs attention -- and were decided by the staffers -- whose director was Phil Zelikow, a neo con and close ally of GW Bush. Thus, Zelikow controlled the agenda, hence what was investigated -- and what was not. He also controlled the flow of information to the commissioners. And Zelikow also had contol over the preparation and editing of the final report.

What do you have to say about the statement above, (in bold) defenders of the official account?




Here's that link. In this interview Lee Hamilton fails to answer question after question -- and doesn't even know about the Pakistani intelligence cash flow to the alleged hijackers. No doubt, this pathetic individual was selected to "lead" the 911 Commisison because of his past obiesance to power.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

See, this is exactly the kind of thing the apologists for the official account have no answer for.

Chances are not one of them is going to read this link (let alone research Hamilton and his past.)

[W*GS]

Why not? Well, consider this. co chair Lee Hamilton admitted in an interview last August on Canadian TV with Evan Solomon -- that he basically lost control over the 911 investigation. (See the link below.)

I read the interview Hamilton had with Solomon. Solomon goes over many of the same issues we've discussed here. Suffice to say that if I had been asked Solomon's questions, I could easily have shown him up as the pro-truther goofhead he is.

I wouldn't take the questions levelled by someone who can't even get the basic facts correct too seriously.

[W*GS]

Let's let gaffney and LABF run wild with their ideas.

Guys, what do you think happened on 9/11?

I'll read what you have to say - but I'll be merciless in my criticisms. Are you prepared?

Oh, and LABF - try to do some of the lifting all by yourself, instead of being a parasite on gaffney.

You two up to it?

[The Lone Bolt]

What world are you living in? Obviously, it is the world of spin and disinformation -- not the world of reality.

After 911 W. Rodriguez was lauded by the Bush White House as a hero -- and rightly so. As I noted -- he saved numerous lives.

It was only when the official cover story took hold and it became clear there would be no truth telling about what happened -- that Rodriguez began to speak out -- and he became persona non grata.

This happened with many other people also -- not just Rodriguez. A number of NYC firemen, for example, and other first responders lost ther jobs when they tried to tell the truth -- and refused to swallow the official lie -- about what happened.

LOL YEAH SURE!!

So Rodriguez KNEW that 9-11 was all a gov't inside job and yet he was still willing to not only pose with dubya but do it with a BIG, SH*T-EATING GRIN ON HIS FACE??ROFL!

The only spin and disinformation I'm seeing here is coming from you Gaff.Hilarious!