Inability To Focus On Demolition = Loss Of Motive For Unity

[Christophera]

3,000 Americans dies in what can only be a demolition.

Americans know what explosions look like.

There was a series of massive explosions at the WTC and any discussion that does not focus on that issue causes a loss of MOTIVE for unity. Explain how what you are doing does NOT cause a loss of motive to unify.

What is a person doing who tries to assert that there were no explosions? I would ask them to explain here what they hope to achieve.

What is a person doing who constantly focuses on inconsequential issues that can be explained away as neglect or incompetence? I would ask them to explain here what they hope to achieve.

[StrafingMoose]

1. Afraid..

You're talking about organized mass murder by, alledgedly, the governement.

If they ever get convicted of this, wether it's true or not, rough times for American people's rights are to be foreseen.

Remember, I think it's HR Haldeman who told Nixon in reponse to Nixons' question "If I don't resign, what could I do?" - "You have the army..."

But yet, this shouldn't discourage people from getting closer to the truth...

[LARED]

2. A better question might be

What does the person advocating the plainly false notion that the towers could have only been brought down via demolition is hoping to achieve?

[Bismillah]

3. A much better question than that: Exactly what is LARED hoping to achieve

...with his insistence that the notoriously mendacious Bush Gang and the various US intelligence agencies are telling us the truth about 9/11?

NOTE: I ask this in the light of LARED's own statement from the David Shayler thread below:

"The fact that state intelligence agencies perform covert (and sometimes illegal) activities is hardy a secret to anyone over 25 years old."

[LARED]

6. An even better question might be

my would Bismillah be creating strawman arguments by quoting me stating something that has nothing to do with the notion that the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition.

[Bismillah]

8. I answered Christophera's question. Why won't you answer mine?

You're very good at that (not answering questions), and I'm not the only one who's noticed it.

So answer the question, if you can. Evasions will be duly noted.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bismillah]

53. I answered your question. You are still evading mine.

And I don't understand why I am not permitted to point out that you have a habit of doing that. (My message was deleted.)

Let's see if I can phrase this with unimpeachable politeness:

Do you in fact believe - as every single one of your previous posts suggests - that the notoriously mendacious Bush Gang and the various intelligence agencies are essentially telling us the truth about 9/11? If so, why? If not, why not?

Thank you.

"The fact that state intelligence agencies perform covert (and sometimes illegal) activities is hardy a secret to anyone over 25 years old." (LARED, June 28, 2005)

[LARED]

60. Why not stop your games; I answered your first question,

Bismillah

Exactly what is LARED hoping to achieve with his insistence that the notoriously mendacious Bush Gang and the various US intelligence agencies are telling us the truth about 9/11?

My response

This is not something I insist is true. ……….

Your evading my question is duly noted as well. So answer if you can.

My question to you was

why would Bismillah be creating strawman arguments by quoting me stating something that has nothing to do with the notion that the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition.

A question you continue to evade.

But rather than providing an answer to my question you continue your hyperbolic sophistry by asking a new question regarding if I believe, why, and why not I believe something, while misleading the reader into thinking all my previous posts indicate I believe the so called official 9/11 story in every detail.

Do you in fact believe - as every single one of your previous posts suggests - that the notoriously mendacious Bush Gang and the various intelligence agencies are essentially telling us the truth about 9/11? If so, why? If not, why not?

Your insistence that my statement

"The fact that state intelligence agencies perform covert (and sometimes illegal) activities is hardy a secret to anyone over 25 years old." (LARED, June 28, 2005)

paints me as inconsistent and conflicted is a transparent attempt to muddy the waters. If you really believe this statement is material in some way to controlled demolition please fill us all in.

So in short, cut the crappolla,

If you seriously are interested in what I believe about the so called official 9/11 story, I will be more than happy to state it again.

Right after you answer my question.

[Bismillah]

61. Right, LARED, should I ask the question in a new,separate thread?

Who's playing games? Not I. You accuse me of advancing a "strawman argument". Well, either you don't understand the term or you are deliberately misusing it, because I was doing nothing of the sort:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

You were the first responder on this thread, and you asked for Christophera's motives in advancing as self-evident truth what he had not yet demonstrated to be true. I agreed with you that he had done just that. (See again my reply to him on the subject of controlled demolition, in which I expressly stated that I agreed with you for once.) In that reply, I addressed the topic of the thread he had started, to him personally, at some length. So that answers your question to me. Granted? Therefore: please don't accuse me of going off-topic just because I also focussed on one example of your regular conduct in order to point out to YOU the regularity of that conduct, and to ask you for your motives in so doing. (Christ, this is hard work...)

There is in fact no other way to go about it, unless I were to start a separate thread, entitled, "Does LARED believe the Bush Gang, etc....?" Should I do so? Must I do so?

Or will you answer the question now?

Here it is, for at least the fourth time:

"Do you in fact believe - as every single one of your previous posts suggests - that the notoriously mendacious Bush Gang and the various US intelligence agencies are essentially telling us the truth about 9/11? If so, why? If not, why not?"

I am asking you, quite simply, to clarify your position, without evasions, and without sarcastic wind-ups, please. And cut the crappola yourself; you and I both know very well that the following quote has bugger all to do with controlled demolition, but everything in the world to do with your entirely uncritical attitude to the Bush Gang's Official Conspiracy Theory, and your incessant criticism of those who venture to question it:

"The fact that state intelligence agencies perform covert (and sometimes illegal) activities is hardy a secret to anyone over 25 years old." (LARED, June 28, 2005)

Answer the question please. (Note: "This is not something I insist is true." is NOT an answer. Not only is it carefully non-committal; it also flies in the face of every other post of yours I've ever seen. It's as if Bush were to say the same thing when asked if he believed Arab terrorists had attacked the Twin Towers.)

[Bismillah]

76. I take it that's a "yes"? n/t

[LARED]

93. You're correct; straw-man argument was not the best way to describe

your rhetoric. Red Herring is far more appropriate.

why would Bismillah be creating strawman a red herring argument by quoting me stating something that has nothing to do with the notion that the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition?

So please answer my question. Thank you in advance.

I will then be happy to answer yours.

BTW, you have stated quite clearly you have been around longer than your number of posts indicate, so why do you feign ignorance about my beliefs surrounding 9/11? Granted, you may have missed my posting them, but it seems unlikely.

[LARED]

107. Are you going to answer my question? (n/t)

[StrafingMoose]

4. Advocating?

Some people are asking questions that remained unanswered according to them. How is that 'advocating' in any way, may I ask you?

[LARED]

54. Advocate is not a word that fits all CT'ers

There are many skeptics that ask honest questions, and there are those that advocate patently untenable positions regarding the collapse of the towers.

[MrSammo1]

48. Pointing out

reality to myth minds isn't easy.

[undeterred]

5. The demolition may be the most gut wrenching aspect of 9/11

since many of the people who died would have gotten out if the buildings had not collapsed.

If there was a demolition, it had to be an inside job.

Was there necessarily a demolition? Maybe not. If only one tower fell it might be easier to attribute it to the effect of the plane alone. But the damage to each of the towers was very different and yet they both collapsed in a similar time frame in ways that look like demolition. It is more difficult emotionally but easier logically for me to believe that there was a demolition. Its not always easy to know one's own reasons for holding on to a position.

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. Not really

"But the damage to each of the towers was very different"

On the contrary both suffered rather similar damage.

"and yet they both collapsed in a similar time frame in ways that look like demolition."

The one hit second collapsed before the first tower hit (hit higher up), and neither looked like any building demolition ever conducted.

"It is more difficult emotionally but easier logically for me to believe that there was a demolition."

Not sure how logic enters into your conclusion as the basis for it are wrong.

"Its not always easy to know one's own reasons for holding on to a position."

Especially when they are not based on facts.

[undeterred]

44. Nice to meet you too.

[vincent_vega_lives]

58. Sorry if you find disagreement disagreeable

but just calling it like I see it.

[MrSammo1]

49. Was there necessarily a demolition? Maybe not.

To believe that we didn't see demolitions is to believe that steel and concrete have to same density as air.

[undeterred]

50. It depends how trained your eye is

To those who are familiar with what a controlled demolition looks like it may be obvious. Before September 11 I have seen tapes of controlled demolitions of much smaller buildings maybe 3 or 4 times. So I, like most Americans, have a relatively untrained eye. I did not look at the scenes of the WTCs collapsing and immediately think "demolition".

I've never seen a demolition of a building anywhere near the size of the WTC. It seemed intuitively implausible to me that these buildings could collapse for mechanical reasons but- what does the average person really know about this?

So, the input of people who do have a trained eye is critical. Having video clips of the collapses and the interpretation of a trained eye makes the difference between believing one thing and another.

[Christophera]

52. Yes, Trained Eye, But, It Did Not Look Like Any Other Demo

A trained eye will spot the high velocity particulate arcing freely for hundreds of feet and immediately know high explosives are at work. They will be mystified at the uniformity, the "roman candle" effect.

This is NOT a typical demolition.

This was an ultra precision series of sychronous detonations intended to feign collapses from aircraft impacts. The world has only seen this kind of delay action in quarry and construction blasting, never in skyscraper demolition.

The planes hit the wrong towers on the wrong sides.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

It is very simple logic but it correctly observes human nature and is fully congruent with the WTC event.

[undeterred]

56. thanks for the excellent link on this

[Christophera]

69. The Link Is My 9-11 Web Page And It Uses All Evidence Consistently.

Glad you enjoyed the page. A great deal of thought went into the integration of all the evidence.

As I've been building the page, I've noticed with excitement that the elements of evidence utilized in the scenario actually work together. There is no evidence incongruent with the scenario.

The scenario explains freefall and pulverization perfectly as well as the bad sequence in the towers falling and the directions they fell.

[Bismillah]

7. Ruppert's point about the physical evidence

Christophera, I think Michael Ruppert made the essential point about the "physical evidence" line of inquiry: there is no hope of ever making a case with it. "Experts" will testify against other "experts", the discussion will become impenetrably technical, and the public will quickly lose the thread and switch off. Not only that, but most of the evidence has long since been destroyed. So it's a bad choice as a first line of attack.

And, much as I hate to agree with LARED, it is not strictly true (or at least not yet demonstrably true) that it "can only (have been) a demolition." I agree, personally, that it looks very much like one, especially WTC7, but I haven't the faintest idea how you plan to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

So it's surely far better to concentrate - first of all - on the demonstrable lies, contradictions, omissions, and absurdities in the Official Conspiracy Theory. What the hell happened to Air Defense (and why does their account keep changing)? Why was Bush allowed to carry on sitting in that classroom? (How did the Secret Service know he was safe there?) Who was in charge of the wargames, exactly what did they involve, and why have we heard so little about them? Why were FBI agents persistently prevented from doing their jobs (and who prevented them)? Why did Bush and Rice state, on multiple occasions, that there were no advance warnings of 9/11, when there were, demonstrably, dozens? Why did they claim that such attacks could not have been imagined, when they were not merely imagined but prepared for, exhaustively?

Etc.

[Bismillah]

10. Link to the photo (from a military website)

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html

Caption: "A plane crash is simulated inside the cardboard courtyard of a surprisingly realistic-looking model Pentagon. This "tabletop" exercise was designed to help emergency relief personnel better prepare for disasters when they occur."

The MASCAL exercise took place on Nov. 3, 2000.

[hack89]

12. Think for a second...

If you were planning a MASCAL (Mass Casualty) drill and your building was located next to a major airport, wouldn't a plane accidentally crashing into your building be a logical scenario? After all, don't most airline crashes take place on take off and landing?

These drills are also annual events.

[Bismillah]

14. You're missing the point.

If a plane crash can be imagined, and prepared for, on an annual basis, then it is a lie to say that such an eventuality could not be imagined or prepared for. Yet that's what George Bush and Condolleeza Rice have told us, several times now.

Whether the crash is intentional or accidental is entirely secondary. And in any case, they were of course warned that such attacks were likely - by FBI agents, by several foreign intelligence agencies, and in the August 6 Presidential briefing.

NOTE (from the same military website): "The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room.

On Oct. 24 (2000), there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents."

[hack89]

16. An accident could be imagined - not 9/11.

Whether the crash is intentional or accidental is not secondary if you believe that this drill is somehow a smoking gun for MIHOP. If they were preparing for an accident than they were nothing more than prudent emergency service professionals.

[Bismillah]

17. Did you even read the post?

To save you clicking back, here's the quote again:

NOTE (from the same military website): "The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room.

On Oct. 24 (2000), there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practicedto better prepare local agencies for real incidents."

[hack89]

27. So you agree with me that they..

were prudent emergency service professionals preparing for any and all potential disaster scenarios? Why wouldn't they prepare for such scenarios - wouldn't you consider them somewhat likely at the Pentagon? Wouldn't it be more suspicious if they didn't prepare for incidents. Again, why is this a smoking gun and not a bunch of people simply doing their jobs preparing for the worst?

[Bismillah]

32. Don't waste my time with these "smoking gun" and "MIHOP" thought-stoppers.

Stickdog and I have now presented you with a ton of evidence that the Bush Gang knew very well that suicide planes were a real and current threat. You never once address this evidence. Instead, you repeat mantras.

So long, and no thanks for the fish.

[hack89]

35. Thanks for the pleasant afternoon...n/t

[Bismillah]

36. "A pleasant afternoon" is hardly the point of a 9/11 forum, is it?

It's not a social club, it's not a football game, and no one (presumably) gets paid for the time they spend on here. If I insisted on missing the point (and ignoring the evidence politely presented) as persistently as you have done, I would also expect some seriously testy replies, sooner or later.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bismillah]

43. Highly-strung, yes. Mettlesome, to a fault. Sanguine, sure...

But "arrogant and rude"? Nooooooo...

[hack89]

45. My kind of guy! Peace? n/t

[Bismillah]

46. My kind of girl! Peace.

Presuming you are a girl (and peace anyway, even if you're not).

A parting gift from the great Bogol:

http://bogol.blogspot.com/2005/02/my-acedemiac-carrer-alas.html

[Bismillah]

55. Why was hack89's message deleted? I am not made of glass.

She said I was "rude and arrogant". I can cope with that. We concluded the thread with a couple of friendly jokes and the word "Peace". No lasting emotional harm was done to anyone.

Please, Mods - if I'm allowed to say this - don't be so quick to delete. A political discussion, and most especially an ongoing debate about 9/11, is not always going to be a picnic. It's hard to have light without heat. Thank you.

[John Doe II]

34. Simple questions to you hack

Are theses people lying?

Transportation Secreatary Norman Mineta: I don’t think we ever thought of
an aircraft being used as a missile. We had no information of that nature at all.

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: The president did not - not - receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers.
This was a new type of attack
that had not been foreseen.
(White House, 16.05.02)

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: Never did we imagine
what would take place on September 11th,
where people used those airplanes as missiles and as weapons.
(White House, 16.05.02)


National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people
would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center,
take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.
(White House, 16.05.02)

President George Bush jr.: Never did anybody’s thought process
about how to protect America
did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one,
but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets – ever.
(White House, 16.09.01)

Journalist: Had there been any warnings that the President knew of?
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: No warnings.
(White House, 11.09.01)

[Bismillah]

38. Thanks for that. n/t

[John Doe II]

39. You're welcome!

And welcome to DU!
:toast:

[Bismillah]

40. Venceremos. n/t

[John Doe II]

62. Hack, do you mind to answer this simple question? n/t

[stickdog]

15. OK. But a terrorist plane would NOT be a logical scenario?

And how would the appropriate response differ in any case?

[hack89]

18. The response is the same..

the question is why is this particular drill a smoking gun for MIHOP? There is a completely innocent explanation for the drill that you and others seem to dismiss out of hand with no reason. This was an annual exercise involving local emergency services (including the Arlington police and fire departments). Why is it impossible to take it at face value - a group of dedicated professionals carefully planning for any and all possible disasters?

[Bismillah]

19. "carefully planning for any and all possible disasters" - exactly!

I don't know why you insist on repeating "it's not a smoking gun for MIHOP" when no-one but yourself has used the phrase.

What it is, is proof that Bush and Rice were lying when they said that such an eventuality could neither be imagined nor prepared for. And as the website makes clear, terrorist attacks were also (of course) among the eventualities planned for. This was the Pentagon, after all.

[hack89]

21. I think that truck bombs or bio/chem attacks

are what they had in mind when it came to terrorist attacks.

And I am sorry, but many use this drill as a smoking gun for MIHOP (just google MASCAL) so I assume you felt the same or you wouldn't have mentioned it. I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

[stickdog]

25. Once again, why the fuck would they consider an accident MORE likely

than a terrorist attack after Operation Bojinka and the terrorists who wanted to hit the Eiffel Tower?

Do you really think everyone on the Pentagon MASCAL team was saying to themselves, "Luckily, an accident is the ONLY way something like this could possibly happen! Because everyone knows there's no such thing as a kamikaze pilot and everybody LOVES the Pentagon!"

[hack89]

30. And how does this prove government involvement in 9/11?

Were the MASCAL team part of the plot? Why is it important what they felt? Or are you saying that after deciding to kill a bunch a people in the Pentagon, the government then turned around and decided to prepare for such an attack with a large drill?

[stickdog]

37. What I'm saying is that they pretended that they never considered the

possibility of terrorists flying planes into buildings when they quite obviously and quite carefully planned for the possibility of a terrorist flying a plane into the Pentagon!

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html

Brown thought the exercise was excellent preparation for any potential disasters.

"We go over scenarios that are germane to the Pentagon," Jake Burrell of the Pentagon Emergency Management Team said. 'You play the way you practice. We want people to go back to their organizations and look at their S.O.P. (standard operating procedure) and see how they responded to any of the incidents."

Burrell has coordinated these exercises for four years and he remarked that his team gets better each year.

Abbott, in his after action critique, reminded the participants that the actual disaster is only one-fifth of the incident and that the whole emergency would run for seven to 20 days and might involve as many as 17 agencies. "The emergency to a certain extent is the easiest part," Abbott said. He reminded the group of the personal side of a disaster. "Families wanting to come to the crash site for closure."

In this particular crash there would have been 341 victims.

... among many other similar scenarios ...

[Bismillah]

26. Oh, puh-leeeease... (Remember Genoa)

"I think that truck bombs or bio/chem attacks are what they had in mind when it came to terrorist attacks."

You think so? But you don't have any evidence whatsoever that that was indeed what they had in mind. So where does that get us?

Take a look at those photos again. Read the quote from the website, which I've now posted twice. And I am not going to provide links to the huge mass of evidence that exists showing that they were most certainly aware of the dangers posed by suicide hijackers. Just one example: Only weeks previously, Italian intelligence had protected Bush from the threat of suicide pilots with a battery of anti-aircraft weapons:

From the New York Times (no less):

2 Leaders Tell of Plot to Kill Bush in Genoa

by David E. Sanger
The New York Times
September 26, 2001

<...>Several days before Mr. Mubarak's interview, in an appearance on Italian television, Gianfranco Fini, the Italian deputy prime minister, discussed parallels between the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and warnings his government had received before the Genoa meeting in July.

Many people joked about the Italian Intelligence Force," Mr. Fini said, "but actually they had information that in Genoa there was the hypothesis of an attack on the American president with the use of an airplane. That is why we closed the airspace above Genoa and installed antiaircraft missiles. Those who joked should now reflect.<...>

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/international/middleeast/26PLOT.html

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

29. So they planned on a plane hitting the Pentagon but ONLY in an accident?

Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?

For further evidence that everybody with a working brain widely considered terrorists flying planes into buildings see:

1) The 1999 Library of Congress Report (The Sociology And Psychology Of Terrorism, http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/frd.html)

2) The 1999 United States Commission on National Security Report

3) The Filipino police warning in 1995 (Operation Bojinka)

4) The Youssaf trial

5) Gore's 1997 Report on Terrorism ( http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html )

6) the Genoa G-8 Summit warning (July, 2001)

[stickdog]

20. Another "coinidence": Flight 77's pilot Charles "Chick" Burlingame

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15

At Dulles Airport, Capt. Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon, was steering his 757, American Airlines Flight 77, down the runway for the long flight to Los Angeles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/attacked/victims/v_150.html

What might their brother have done to thwart the terrorists' plans and save his 58 passengers and five crew members? The only hint of their final moments has come from two brief phone calls that passenger Barbara Olson placed to her husband, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, as the plane was heading toward Washington.

"If he couldn't save that plane, nobody could," said Burlingame's younger sister, Debra, a lawyer who lives in Los Angeles. "We want to tell his story so that people who had loved ones on that flight will know that he would have sacrificed himself to save them."

"One of the true ironies of this crash is that it was into the Pentagon, where he worked for many years as a naval reserve officer," said Burlingame's brother, Brad, a tourism executive in West Hollywood, Calif. "The people that perished in that crash could very well have been friends and colleagues of his."

Charles Burlingame, an aeronautical engineer and honors graduate from the Navy's Top Gun fighter pilot school in Miramar, Calif., had been known since he was a child as "Chic." He earned the nickname "Gramps" from his classmates at the U.S. Naval Academy because of his penchant for wearing snazzy red slippers as a midshipman.

[hack89]

22. I'm sorry - but so what?

what is the significance of this?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Christophera]

41. LARED, This Thread Does Have A Topic = Accountability Now

And, much as I hate to agree with LARED, it is not strictly true (or at least not yet demonstrably true) that it "can only (have been) a demolition." I agree, personally, that it looks very much like one, especially WTC7, but I haven't the faintest idea how you plan to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

Practically in the dysfunctional world we occupy, the above might be true, if we are well enough controlled in our thinking.
Below, wargames and other questions will never be answered by authority, asking is slightly less than a waste of time in creating unity. It at least keeps the issues alive.

So it's surely far better to concentrate - first of all - on the demonstrable lies, contradictions, omissions, and absurdities in the Official Conspiracy Theory. What the hell happened to Air Defense (and why does their account keep changing)? Why was Bush allowed to carry on sitting in that classroom? (How did the Secret Service know he was safe there?) Who was in charge of the wargames, exactly what did they involve, and why have we heard so little about them? Why were FBI agents persistently prevented from doing their jobs (and who prevented them)? Why did Bush and Rice state, on multiple occasions, that there were no advance warnings of 9/11, when there were, demonstrably, dozens? Why did they claim that such attacks could not have been imagined, when they were not merely imagined but prepared for, exhaustively?
Etc.

To succeed we must ONLY use information we are sure of, information we possess that is of an absolute nature. Using such is the essence of our human cognitive instinct and alignment of our purposes.

IF we focus on HOW the demolition was conducted and the actual structure that existed as it is taken apart at high speed, we can agree.

When we focus we can get the attention of construction people who can identify the structural elements making energy analysis and other factors more relevant as to what type of demolition the towers were.

We have a real problem with interference and accountability here in the process of decision and agreement and I've asked pointed questions from those who engage in specific behaviors and they are not responding in any way relative to the question. This, is apparently okay.

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. We can agree

1. That both Towers were struck by a 767 aircraft.

2. Both aircraft strikes caused structural damage and the fires.

3 That the Towers suffered a structural failure which caused a collapse.

We disagree in the cause of the initiation of the collapse. You seem to think the evidence points to explosives based on the claim that both tower's cores were composed of a concrete and re-bar and their disintegration could only be caused by high explosives.

With out that concrete and re-bar core, your argument falls apart. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that the towers were constructed as you claim, in fact all the information that has concluded the oposite, that the tower's core was constructed of steel box girders and sheet rock, with the only concrete in the floors (extra 1" in the core area).

[Christophera]

64. Photos Never Show Multiple Steel Cores In DEMO But TONS Of Concrete Flying

Deduction says that if the steel cores are never seen and heavy particulate is arcing 300 feet upwards and the basement is full of gravel, that there were no steel cores and that there was a tubular concrete core and the government lies again.

Remember the "tube in a tube" construction.

What do you hope to accomplish by denouncing explosives as the cause of the towers demise?

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. There you go again with the "government lies"

Sound a little paranoid, like Bush controls every aspect of the "Government".

The "tube in a tube" is a steel tube within a steel tube bub.

What do I hope to accomplish???? Shedding some truth on the so called "experts" around here that are so full of it.

Personally I think it is pure narcissism the leads on to believe they alone are uncorrupted while everyone else is either part of the "evil plot" or sheeple. People like yourself cast themselves as a sort of a tragic lead in a bad movie.

[pox americana]

66. Oh brother.

It wasn't narcissism that made those three towers shoot right into their basements, it was the extensive placement of explosives.

[Christophera]

68. I Don't Talk About bush And He Doesn't Even Control Himself.

vincent_vega_lives,

I do believe you evaded the real question, the topic of this thread.

What do you hope to accomplish with your "shedding some truth".

And what Will Truth Mean?

"tube in a tube" Not "tubes in a tube" And where are the 47 steel core columns in the demo photos where they should be?.





If they existed, they MUST show in these photos. Instead of steel cores we have elements to fine to be cores or box columns. It is rebar.

REBAR, there was a concrete core.

[Dancing_Dave]

77. I don't agree with any of those three assumptions...

And only those who base their whole carreers on P.T. Barnum's saying "there's a sucker born every minuite" would at this point base their argument on such propaganda suppositions.

Oh yeah, and the hired P.R. guns who only know how to appeal to mass media hypnotized suckers on the basis of shear PREDJUDICE, as if THAT was this was all about.

[Make7]

88. Are they still standing?

vincent_vega_lives wrote:
3 That the Towers suffered a structural failure which caused a collapse.

You don't agree with that? Which part? That they didn't suffer structural failure? Or that they didn't collapse?

-Make7

[spooked911]

73. I tend to agree with this-- demolition makes sense in many ways

but overall this idea is too controversial and the evidence for demolition is too circumstantial to convince someone who doesn't believe in "conspiracies".

Since WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by huge airplanes and suffered from large fires, it is too easy for people to accept the official story. The strange collapse of WTC7 is easier to get people's attention if you really want to promote demolition.

There's a reason that LARED et al always rebut the idea of demolition of the twin towers but they do not really refute other aspects of 9/11 as much. That's because all the evidence for demolition of the twin towers can be interpreted in other ways that can seem reasonable. It is the problem with physical evidence.

You need to accept this, Chris.

We can hammer away at WHY demolition makes the most sense-- and there are still arguments we can make that LARED et all can't answer. But still, you can't really say demoliton is proven.

[pauldp]

47. Great Point!! Thank You!!

Everyone should be asking questions about WTC7. Where is the steel from the most unusual building failure in history? Why was it not tested for explosives when it looked exactly like demolition. Why did Silverstein say they decided to "pull the building"

If it looks like controlled demolition, smells like controlled demolition and acts like controlled demolition, it probably is controlled demolition.

[Christophera]

51. Inquiry Good, But, Blunted Point Without Accountable Government.

Posted by pauldp
"Great Point!! Thank You!!"

Everyone should be asking questions about WTC7. Where is the steel from the most unusual building failure in history? Why was it not tested for explosives when it looked exactly like demolition. Why did Silverstein say they decided to "pull the building"
If it looks like controlled demolition, smells like controlled demolition and acts like controlled demolition, it probably is controlled demolition.

WTC 7 was a privately owned building. We have less power of inquiry into events there than the Twin Towers.

My point is that the towers were public and guiliani will not release the wtc documents and the courts won't make him. No answer concerning the lack of testing will be forthcoming. Herein is a method of evasion and we HAVE the evidence to expose it for America to see. We can do it without acountable government and convince the people, but we MUST unify and there is psyop sabotage going on that is deflecting our efforts.

I'm trying to get those who denounce the demolition evidence to state WHY they are here. What purpose do they serve? What do they hope to accomplish with their attacks on raw evidence?

Unfortunately not nearly enough people with the experience to use the photographic evidence are ALSO 9-11 truth seekers so it is very important to have a fully reasonable and fair environment to present evidence and develop shared conclusion, inference and deduction.

[Endangered Specie]

57. Just because it causes 'disunity' is not a logical reason

to question (refute) the 'theories' of 'massive explosions', and is even more a sign of a 'theory' with weakness if it cant be sustained unless presented in an echo chamber.

As someone who tries to assert the fact that there were no 'explosions' (as in demolition)... my goals are to observe and maybe debate, but mainly to represent the 'offical' side, which you have got to admit is a small minority in this forum.

[Christophera]

63. Without Unity We Can Kiss Our Rights And Freedoms Goodbye.

If we are to err, let it be on the side of retaining our rights and freedoms,

on the side of justice,

on the side that sees our Constitution stand to the letter of the law, always.

[pox americana]

67. It's hard to accept.

As long as we remember that, and keep in mind our own initial reluctance to believe it, we can help others come to a clearer understanding of what actually happened on 9/11.

Face it, it's a painful truth, and nobody likes pain.

[Christophera]

70. Cycle of Dissociation

Yes it is painful. Americans have been forgetting WAY TOO MUCH. Watching our government in the last 20 years, heck the last 70 years (I haven't been watching that long but have studied it) is pretty painful if one considers the principles of the Constitutional democracy.

[pointless]

71. Two huge explosions

That were caused by two very large aircraft crashing into two very large buildings.

[Christophera]

72. What Do You Expect To Gain From Not Seeing Explosions?

Are you not at least suspiscious that the first building hit, hit worst, burned worst fell last? What about the total pulverization?

How would a proper investigation hurt you?

Is it not an American tradition to be suspicious of government?

[petgoat]

74. Two explosions

Two aircraft.

Three buildings?

Building 7 has the greatest contradictions. Its collapse was
unexplained, and there was no reason to move the steel quickly--no
survivors to rescue.

It can be easily postulated that a "toxic tenant" was able, over a
period of months, to place explosives in the building. It can be
proposed that these tenants must have been al Qaeda agents, and that
by failing to investigate the possibility of explosives the US runs the
risk of letting perpetrators of the plot get away the murder.

[Bismillah]

75. EXCELLENT point!

petgoat writes: "It can be easily postulated that a "toxic tenant" was able, over a period of months, to place explosives in the building. It can be proposed that these tenants must have been al Qaeda agents, and that by failing to investigate the possibility of explosives the US runs the risk of letting perpetrators of the plot get away (with) murder."

- Very well said. And pushing this point would be an extremely crafty strategy for 9/11 activists, because it doesn't even necessarily involve the hypothesis of an inside job. (Nobody can say, "These conspiracy nuts...") We're told Al Qaeda did it. So, even if we accept that, the Bush Gang is neglecting its patriotic duty by failing even to investigate the possibility that Al Qaeda operatives had placed explosives in the building. If "Al Qaeda" got away with that once, "Al Qaeda" might easily get away with it again - unless we find out exactly how they did it.

It's simply indefensible that NIST and FEMA did no testing for explosives. How can they possibly justify that?

Is there any possibility of pinning them down with this at some public hearing?

NOTE: As petgoat says, it's also best by far to concentrate on Building 7. Many people have forgotten (or never knew) that a third huge building collapsed on the same day despite suffering no airplane impact. The Forgotten Skyscraper constitutes one of the most embarrassingly weak points in the Official Conspiracy Theory. So: why no testing for explosives?

[pointless]

78. unlikely

that Al Qaeda set explosives in the towers. The explosive devices used by them are homemade, crude and would be next to impossible for them to set perfectly placed and timed explosives to bring the buildings down. I'm not buyin the Al Qaeda set explosives thing.

Lets say Al Qaeda did set the explosives. What then is the point of crashing airplanes into the buildings?

In building 7 didn't the fire chief tell the owner that it had severe fires and structural damage. That's when the owner said those two magic words. "pull it." I believe he meant it in the context of pulling the firemen out and stop the operation to try and save the building. He may have been concerned about losing more firemen and felt their lives were not worth risking to save what was left of his building. If he did mean demolish it then why is nobody asking the firechief that he told to pull it about this?

[Christophera]

79. 2 Planes, 2 Towers, 2 Identicle Demolitions = Too Much, Then #7

WTC 7 was privately owned and we do not have the same right to know that we do with a publically owned structure such as the twin towers were.

WTC 7 had undergone massive remodeling which had made full opportunity to place the needed thermite at intervals to cause the building to fall as it did. Molten steel was found under #7 also.

I think the Al Qaeda suggestion was facetious although it would be a good ploy for the truth movement to use.

As far as I can tell flight 11 had no explosives. Flight 175 however had a thick brown cloud of concrete expanding faster than the fuel explosion on the impact side. On the other side, to the right, was the massive fireball

No, .......... that is not baby satan.

[pointless]

81. no baby satan

I see a building that was hit by a big airplane. I still have not seen any real evidence of blasts caused by set explosives. Just lots of people saying it happened and then providing insufficient circumstancial evidence to back it up.

I don't know what happened to 7. Maybe the owner did have it demolished. If so, what's the big deal? He made the decision to demolish his own building. Why would the government investigate the demolition of a private building by it's owner?

Is thermite generally used in demolition? Why would it have been used here? There was tons of smoke coming from 7 before it collapsed. You also don't get a good view of the collapse from any of the several video footage of it collapsing.

[John Doe II]

82. Mind me asking?

I don't know what happened to 7. Maybe the owner did have it demolished. If so, what's the big deal? He made the decision to demolish his own building. Why would the government investigate the demolition of a private building by it's owner?
Well, you can smash your own computer and the government wouldn't investigate. But I'm not really sure if you can demolish your building with tenants as Secret Service DoD CIA and SEC just because your the owner....

Not to talk about the danger that the building collapses on another building ...

And second. Mind me telling how exploives could have been planted inside WTC 7 within a few hours after the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed or are you implying Silverstein planned the demolition before 911 .....?

I'm afraid it is not that simple as you think.

[pointless]

83. i don't

actually think it was demolished on purpose. In an effort to placate some others here I offered that scenario.

[Dancing_Dave]

91. Well, gee, pointless, you sure do live up to your name!

You still haven't dealt with how numerous eyewitness reports, as well as audio and video from the events, indicate numerous independent explosions in the WTC complex on 9/11/2001.

Nope, there weren't just two in the location of "aircraft impacts", and those weren't the hottest, most energetic and decisive explosive events either.

You really DON'T have any adequate physical analysis of what really happened there on 9/11/2001, and you don't even come close to sketching one.

Why even bother to offer nothing but an appeal to purely propagandic mythological PREJUDICE??? That is NOT anything which impresses most of us here.

[Christophera]

87. WTC Prepared For Demolition During Remodels

The required thermite was added during extensive remodels to most floors during the last 10 years.

Yes, it is not simple.

To make a steel framed building fall like a curtain is not simple.

It did an accordian type fall from the bottom up. WIth delays on thermite charges on columns of every other floor initiating from the bottom up, the effect seen could be created.

There was molten steel in the basement of 7.

[Christophera]

85. Dumbing Down Of America- I can't make Up For It.

If you can't see what is happening in the photo you have no basis in experience to analyze the photo.

If you are looking for a typical "dumbed down America" type information situation, forget it. The people who made you dumb are now decieving you.

If the owner demolished his building as a part of a terrorist theatre wherein 3,000 Americans wer killed, he has some questions to answer in a murder investigation.

Thermite is the only way to melt steel under those conditions.

Get educated.

[LARED]

94. thick brown cloud of concrete expanding faster

Tell me how you know that is concrete?

Please analyze this video. It is a tranformer fire. Note the two different colored smokes, note the cloud of fuel vapor just prior to the fire ball. Note that there were no explosives involved, jsut like the WTC.

http://www.alexlights.com/video/Transformer.mpg

[Christophera]

97. LARED Won't State Purposes | OMG! Confuser W/False Pretense

LARED wrote

"thick brown cloud of concrete expanding faster"
Tell me how you know that is concrete?
Please analyze this video. It is a tranformer fire. Note the two different colored smokes, note the cloud of fuel vapor just prior to the fire ball. Note that there were no explosives involved, jsut like the WTC.

As if a fire of any type with smoke rising upward was some how related to particulate and chunks blown outwards, downward, outrunning a fuel explosion, the first false pretense. Then presenting evidence on that basis.

You ignore the fact that only concrete can appear as we see in a period of 1/2 second.

What do you hope to accomplish by not recognizing explosions? What are your goals here?
What effect do you wish to have here?

[LARED]

99. Have you considered that the white cloud

you believe is concrete could actually be un-ignited jet fuel.

[Christophera]

100. Be Serious, 3,000 Americans Have Died, No TIme For Jokes

Or wasting time rebutting the ridiculous.

What do you hope to accomplish by promoting that people there were no explosions at the WTC?

To pretend you are protecting public interest from compiled information and inference or "theories" as you would term the reasonable scenarios of demolition put forth, is absurd.

You haven't adequately answered one real question or shown how the official story is correct as to the structure of the towers, and now you've made an imbecilic suggestion concerning fuel and flame propagation.

Get real ,........... a lot of people have died, we are all going to loose bigtime if we can't use the information we actually do have.

[LARED]

106. Have a nice day

as with most of life, the events of 9/11 are about choices. You choose to believe controlled demolition is a fact, when in reality it is at its very best wild speculation. I will not convince you otherwise, and your insistence that to suggest otherwise is imbecilic, absurd and is making a joke out of the 3000 murdered that day is crossing the line.

[philb]

108. more evidence of explosions & controlled demolition at WTC

WTC 2 top pulverized from below
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate11.htm


WTC 2 new explosions
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate12.htm

More explosions at WTC2
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate13.htm

[LARED]

109. Why do you keep linking to this web site?

it's laughable.

They can't even spell engineers correctly. See the second paragraph.

[Bismillah]

80. You're missing the point.

You say you're "not buyin the Al Qaeda set explosives thing." Well, it's irrelevant which pigs in which pokes you, I, or anyone else is buying. The point is that the government, by its own lights, has the duty to investigate every reasonable possibility, and they haven't done so.

No steel was recovered from WTC7 (!) and there was no testing (!) for explosives. That's a disgrace, and they need to explain that.

P.S. "In building 7 didn't the fire chief tell the owner that it had severe fires and structural damage." Is this a question or a statement? If he did say such a thing, it's the first time I've heard it. Where's the evidence that he ever did? (Link?)

[pointless]

84. PBS

There was a PBS documentary where the owner Silverstein used the term "pull it" after being told the fire dept was not going to be able to contain the fires. I had it slightly wrong the first time. I just looked it up again and got the quote below.

In a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

It appears that the fire chief did not think his dept could contain the fires in building 7.

[Christophera]

86. Distribution Of Explosives Was Absolutely Optimum, No Terrorist Bombs.

Posted by Bismillah

"You're missing the point."
You say you're "not buyin the Al Qaeda set explosives thing." Well, it's irrelevant which pigs in which pokes you, I, or anyone else is buying. The point is that the government, by its own lights, has the duty to investigate every reasonable possibility, and they haven't done so.

I'm not all together certain you're replying to me but, No, I don't think terrorists planted any bombs at the WTC. I think they flew planes into towers and there were fires. Without the demolition only about 700 would have been killed and no collapses would have occured.

The placement and distribution of high explosives was absolutely maximized. So efficient that people argue about whether explosives were used. People believe that the structure "just pancaked" from fire damage.

We have never seen such a complete and efficient demolion in all time. This is only possible if the buildings were built to demolish.

Your point is well taken, the government failed to investigate 9-11, what do we do about it? That they didn't is reason enough for Americans to assemble, but no, many belive the lies used to justify wa and more.

My point is that Americans need to focus on what did happen from a common sense perspective, not on things they cannot do anything about. We can make up our mind based on evidence if we are honest with integrity to reason.

Once we know what happened, we might unify,

Government has been infiltrated by secret factions and no accountability, so what ever we do that requires its coopoeration is certainly not a current action. It is direction of inquiry and investigation for later IF we can get an accountable government again, (did we ever have this?) so what you say below is all true, but not useful in doing what needs to be done and that is for the people to unify.

No steel was recovered from WTC7 (!) and there was no testing (!) for explosives. That's a disgrace, and they need to explain that.
P.S. "In building 7 didn't the fire chief tell the owner that it had severe fires and structural damage." Is this a question or a statement? If he did say such a thing, it's the first time I've heard it. Where's the evidence that he ever did? (Link?)

[philb]

89. 911Research page has excellent documentation WTC by controlled dem.

Evidence of Controlled Demolition of WTC Buildings
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/towers.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/surviving.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/index.html

Fires in the WTC Rubble That Persisted for Months
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

Reports from Firefighters at the Impact Zone Inside the South Tower- small controllable fires in South Tower http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html

Implausible Pancake Theories not supported by the evidence
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/index.html

[philb]

90. Experience of WTC 3,4,5,6,7 support controlled dem. for all WTC1&2

WTC7 Evidence of Controlled Demolition http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html#ref1
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

WTC 5 was severely damaged by fallout from the collapse of the towers. Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

WTC 6 was severely damaged on September 11 with two holes that extend the height of the building. It appears that fires may have raged through WTC 6. From the appearance of the remains of WTC 6, it probably had fires similar in severity to those in WTC 5. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires probably more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 6 did not collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html

WTC 4 was severely damaged by fallout from the collapse of the South Tower, with all but one wing of the building having collapsed to ground level. The portion of WTC 4 that remained standing had a blackened appearance suggesting that it sustained severe fires. Despite the crushing of most of WTC 4 by fallout from the towers, it does not appear that the fires caused any further collapse of this building. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html

WTC 3 was first partially crushed by the steel skeleton fragments from the South Tower and then further crushed by those from the North Tower. In each case the rubble, falling from as much as 1300 feet, collapsed regions spanning several floors but was arrested by the building's steel structure. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc3.html

[CJCRANE]

92. The demolition theory is a distraction.

Follow the money.

[pox americana]

95. The money trail leads to demolition.

The only people who didn't profit handsomely from demolishing the WTC are the surviving citizens of NYC, who had to breathe asbestos dust, PCBs, dioxin and who knows what else for months, and US taxpayers, who will pay the billions spent on hush money, 9/11 graft, and a couple of ill-advised foreign adventures.

[CJCRANE]

98. Interesting and important

but still a sideshow. Who paid the hijackers? Follow the money.

[Christophera]

96. Demolition Fact Is A Direction And Reason For Unity & = Function

Of course one of the motives is money. Let us not decieve ourselves into thinking it is the only motive. There are a number of them and different factions with them.

What matter is our unity. Without some sort of unity, our democracy is not functional.

The big effect of media is to divide us in our purposes, after dumbing us down as to our possibilities. A focus on truth is what is needed; and demolition is the only possibility for what we saw happen; because that is what can break the shield of ignorance created by the post 9-11 flag abuse.

[CJCRANE]

101. Who paid the hijackers

and who do they have personal, financial and business connections to?

Follow the money.

[Christophera]

102. Money Trail Cannot Be Followed W/Out Accountable Government.

It is true that IF you could follow the money (do we know who the hijackers were?) you would learn a great deal, but without a bonafied investigation that will not happen.

[philb]

104. Isn't that true about any aspect of 9/11? There is no institution to do

any credible investigation currently in the U.S. We live in a totalitarian system to a large degree.

[Christophera]

105. Some Aspects Do Not Need Investigation, Analysis Will Show MIHOP

but focus is needed so the material that needs analysis will be highlighted and stand out from all the trivia that needs a credible investigatory institution in order to be valuable, something that doesn't exist.

This is how we break from the catch 22 loop of dysfunction.

[philb]

103. Thought its known that the Pakistani ISI paid the hijackers; and

the General who was head of Pakistani ISA was in the U.S. for the 2 weeks prior to 9/11, after providing Atta with $100,000.

Of course the U.S. has been a major supporter of the Pakistani ISI covert operations supplying lots of money.