I've been thinking a lot about 9/11 lately . . .

[OneBlueSky]

and particularly how the more we learn, the more the "official" story sounds implausible . . . yet most Americans still believe the official story as constructed by BushCo for reasons that, at this point, only they know . . .

I believe that there is enough physical evidence -- supported by other evidence -- to conclude that a) the planes were not the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers (and certainly not WTC7); b) something other than a jetliner hit the Pentagon (the photo evidence is more than convincing); and c) that Flight 93 exploded in the air (probably the result of a missile hitting it) . . . unfortunately, most Americans haven't seen the relevant evidence, and those in control are still disputing that evidence every time it's brought up . . .

a great deal could be accomplished by proving that this evidence IS conslusive, and by communicating same to the voters . . . if presented by authoritative and trustworthy sources, conclusions based on physical evidence would go a long way toward a) creating demand for a REAL, thorough investigation of 9/11, particularly what actually happened on that day, and b) defeating BushCo in November . . .

I'd like to toss out an idea to the various organizations concerned with learning the truth about 9/11 . . . they should think about getting together and jointly constituting a panel of individuals with impeccable credentials to answer, for the public, three questions:

1) Were the planes that hit the Twin Towers the cause of their collapse?

2) Was it physically possible for what hit the Pentagon to have been a jetliner?

3) Did Flight 93 explode before it hit the ground?

the panel should consist of at least one (possibly two) of the following: architects; structural engineers; physicists; fire investigators; aircraft experts; and persons with whatever other kinds of expertise would help the investigation . . . someone -- an individual, an agency, a foundation -- should be found to fund a very comprehensive examination of the evidence relevant to each question by the panel . . . I'm confident that, just by examining available evidence and the laws of physics, their answers to the questions would be 1) no; 2) no; and 3) yes . . . the investigation would have to be done quickly, so these folks should be prepared to work full-time for several weeks or a couple of months if necessary . . . might have to appeal to their sense of patriotism, i.e. they'd be performing an invaluable service to their country (and, in reality, to the world) . . .

people know that the Commission is a political body and that its findings will be political . . . this alternative panel must have instant credibility, and that can only happen if its members are qualified, impartial, and well-respected in their fields . . . no politicians allowed, and no one with ties to either party . . . if the panel earns the respect and confidence of the public right up front, their findings could be the blockbuster that's needed to start finding out the truth about 9/11 and to defeating BushCo in November . . .

just a thought . . . think it's worth pursuing? . . .

[pa28]

1. A scenario only an evil genius could plan and execute

* only qualifies as evil. I think, however, there is more to flight 93 than we are being told.

[OneBlueSky]

10. didnt' say (or imply) that Bush had anything to do . . .

with the planning or the execution . . . only that someone did, and it likely wasn't 20 hijackers totally unknown to the feds on 9/11 but whose photos and bios magically appeared all over the news about 24 hours later . . .

[aquart]

2. Unbelievable. You pick out the exactly wrong thing to sniff out.

But you know best, I'm sure.

[OneBlueSky]

8. I picked this stuff for two reasons . . .

first, the existing evidence that contradicts the BushCo story . . . and second, the fact that disproving such basic elements of that story will have an enormous impact on public opinion . . . but then you know best, I'm sure . . .

on edit: sloppy wording . . .

[sithknight]

3. um...

You ask: "1) Were the planes that hit the Twin Towers the cause of their collapse?" Not to be rude but; did you see the videos? Have you talked with anyone in NY? Here's a law of physics Force equals Mass multiplied by Acceleration (F=MA). Bearing that in mind, imagine the sheer impact of the jetliner hitting the building, and then feel free to fudge the numbers on the explosive force subsequent.

You ask: "2) Was it physically possible for what hit the Pentagon to have been a jetliner?" And the answer is yes. Under classic (and quantum) physics, a jetliner may hit the pentagon.
If you really meant to question the destructive force of a jetliner hitting the Pentagon; applying the aforementioned F=MA equation (along with the fudged explosion numbers) I leave it to you to ponder.
You ask: "3) Did Flight 93 explode before it hit the ground?" Yeah, it is probably a good idea to double check and make sure that it wasn't cause by a mechanical defect. But otherwise: why not just let those people be thought of as heroes? I mean, it doesn't really profit us to think otherwise or anyone else to think otherwise.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure precisely what to make of your post. It's pretty damned cynical. A whole bunch of people died because some crazy fundamentalist decided to murder them. That's just plain sad, and jokes at their expense is weak-sauce.

[OneBlueSky]

9. in the matter of question 1 . . .

the buildings fell at free-fall speed, as if there was nothing to slow the collapse, and fell precisely into their own footprints . . . there is no way that fires hot enough to melt steel occurred anywhere in the buildings, particularly in the lower levels (which is the minimum that would have been required for that kind of collapse) . . .

as for question 2, have you seen the photographs of the Pentagon wall BEFORE it collapsed? . . . there's about an 18' hole, and no broken windows . . . further, the plane supposedly penetrated to the third ring of the building . . . basic arithmetic shows that this would leave about half the plane still outside the building . . . simple, straightforward evidence . . .

and for question 3, the fact that LARGE hunks of the plane were found in a lake miles from the crash site pretty much proves that it exploded in the air . . .

[sithknight]

16. conspiracies are easy to allege

difficult to prove. what is "free fall speed" supposed to mean? That (gasp) objects fall at the same rate? Wow, Galileo would be proud. Nothing to slow the collapse? For someone who seems to be claiming a whole lot of knowledge of architecture and metallurgy, you sure don't provide us with much in the way of facts or coherent theories. "no way that fires hot enough to melt steel" And precisely how hot must that be? Do you really think that the effect of the entire building burning after being ignited with jet fuel wouldn't generate heat? Or that the design of the building might not have contributed to the way in which the fire moved/heated up? Just because you saw King Kong climb the towers and they didn't collapse, doesn't prove much.

"basic arithmetic shows that this would leave about half the plane still outside the building" yeah, and I'm sure that the plane didn't crumple at all when it hit. It just rigidly stuck out of the building Like a toothpick in a brownies. "simple, straightforward evidence" is not your word. Pony up the pictures.

As for question 3: what are you suggesting? that we shot down our own plane? so what? If we did, that's a good thing because it was what we needed to do after we realized what was going on. HOWEVER mr. physics, when a plane slams into the ground it isn't like all the pieces or chunks are gonna just stay in a discrete area. Things scatter, roll, and tend to disperse. Try dropping an egg onto your kitchen floor. Then throw the egg. Notice the dispersal pattern?

You have no proof. You offer innuendo and suggestion. This kind of stuff is precisely what neo-cons latch onto when they try to demonize us as 'crazy libs' and provide an easy excuse for ignoring us. You want some answers? Then leave your computer, go to your local community college, pretend you're enrolled, and chat up a few professors. You should have the answers in an afternoon and then you can go back to trying to figure out who killed JFK.

[demodewd]

20. attn: sithnight

A plane doesn't slam into the ground and leave debris seven miles away.

[OneBlueSky]

21. well, you can start here . . .

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_articles.htm

pick your topic and do a little reading . . . look at some of the photos . . . your lack of knowledge is stunning . . . when you're done with these, I can refer you to any number of other sites dealing with the specifics of all three incidents . . . if you're interested, which I doubt . . .

on edit: while we're at it, how do you explain this particular incongruity? . . .

[impe]

12. Hehehehe

(F=MA) No, we were hoping you'd show us the math. Throwing a law around doesn't prove anything.

[sithknight]

18. don't be lazy

do it yourself. I gave you the equation. you plug the numbers.

[Djinn]

4. I wasn't a LIHOPer or MIHOPer

but the more time has passed, and the more the Wahhabist KEEP using fertiliser bombs the more I wonder about 9/11.

20 blokes manage to hi-jack four planes within minutes of each other fly them off course and crash them - in the most technically advanced nation on earth??? yet all they can come up with elsewhere is trucks packed with animal poop and moble phone detonated bombs a child could make following an internet recipe.

I still don't know what to beleive but the official story is fishy as far as I'm concerned

[Beam Me Up]

5. Well, you can see what you are up against from the first three replies

I'm with you. I find the collapses of the three WTC buildings and the event at the Pentagon highly suspicious. I haven't paid much attention to the flight 93 question. However, I've noticed that a lot of people, even here at DU, find these ideas worse than absurd. They perceive them as a threat to the credibility of the Democratic party--or at least so many indicate. I would like to see the kind of inquiry you propose but clearly there are those who call themselves Democrats who would not welcome it.

[OneBlueSky]

7. guess you're right . . .

but all of these things can be proven . . . and doing so is exactly the kind of thing that would impact public opinion . . . I've read everything I can find about 9/11, and the contradictions -- both with the official story and the laws of physics -- are simply stunning . . . I won't go into any of the evidence here . . . there are plenty of sources if folks are interested . . . those who refuse to look beyond the BushCo story are wearing blinders, imo . . . for whatever reason . . .

[Beam Me Up]

15. "all these things can be proven"--yes, one way or another

I don't want to discourage you from contacting those involved in various 9/11 projects and making your proposal for a joint effort of respected persons. I think it is a great idea and NEEDS to be done.

Or, perhaps what is needed is to concentrate on ONE piece of physical evidence that, if the full truth were known of it, would make or break the official story (surprise) AND ITS FALL BACK (incompetence).

I, for example, would very much like to know WHY the Pentagon and FBI doesn't release other video evidence of the impact on the Pentagon. I find it VERY difficult to believe that the ONLY security camera that caught the impact was the one at the parking lot gate. That, to me, is simply not believable. Well, then, where are the other videos? If they show what is claimed, why not release them to the public? The one that was released, as we've seen, not only does not answer the question, it begs the question: What the hell was THAT?

[MI Cherie]

6. If ignorance is bliss ...

... there must be a lot of blissful people.

I can't imagine why everyone doesn't want to know the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ..."

There are so many questions that need to be sincerely asked AND answered absolutely truthfully.

All theories proved or disproved.

Beyond any reasonable doubt!

Dismissing legitimate questions by laughing them off or ignoring certain "inconsistencies" or "coincidences" is insulting.

[Old and In the Way]

11. I'd certainly like to see more evidence on the Pentagon crash.

I assume 77 hit, but I've seen no conclusive evidence that it did. I don't know why clear pics have not been released to prove that a 757 hit. I've seen parts of a jet engine and a wheel, nothing else.

But we can't prove what we don't know and have no evidence to support.

But we do know that 77 hit the Pentagon 52 minutes after 175 crashed into the WTC. That is gross incompetance at best, LIHOP at worst.

Impeach, try, and convict these criminals.

[OneBlueSky]

22. several of the articles listed here . . .

deal specifically with the Penagon event . . . pick and choose as you will . . . when you're done, there are any number of other websites with enormous amounts of information . . . including what, imo, is the most conclusive, i.e. the photos (they're DOD photos, btw) of the Pentagon wall BEFORE it collapsed . . . there is no way a jetliner fit into that hole . . . period . . .

[OudeVanDagen]

13. "finding the truth"

Finding the truth is indeed worth pursuing. I can only speak to the collapse of WTC. I am an old timer .... an engineer who has investigated and tried to prevent structural collapse all over the globe for the past 6 plus decades. Rather than give you a summary of what I personally saw and experienced (which has already been offered in other threads) on 911 and in the weeks and months thereafter, or offer links to or 'out of context' excerpts from the over three dozen collapse reports and fifty or so collateral reports (so far ... more coming), I can, if you are genuinely interested, steer you toward a better understanding of WTC.

There are steps to understanding WTC; the first two steps are foundational, learning about collapse. The first step is to read about some of the more significant or major structural collapse incidents that have happened before or after WTC ... the 1981 Kansas City Hyatt Regency for example. It was for many years considered the worst structural disaster in the US. This incident was very thoroughly investigated by engineers and collapse experts, hotly litigated and very well covered by the press. There are several worthy news stories available on the web with simple searches for this incident. Of course the incident didn't involve aircraft collision or fire like WTC, but KC Hyatt is an important and a comparative incident if one wants to understand how crucial structural connections are, how an investigation is conducted ... what policies, procedures and protocols investigators use and adhere to and how evidence of structural collapse is collected ... and how an independent press plays a role in forcing the truth. Your investigation and reading into this incident will also expose you to the engineering terms used, and expose you to the pros and cons of expert and eyewitness testimony. You will learn about the "extreme event" in a collapse and about the sequence of collapse. All this is necessary if you really want to understand what happen to WTC on 911.

The second step toward better understanding WTC would be to read some of the 911 WTC collapse reports in full. Not all reports are final ... some that have been released are still preliminary .... not all reports agree; but reading them "in full" is key. Footnotes explaining for example the Modulus Of Elasticity for WTC Steel will allow you to understand the yield and shear points of steel under tension and compression and it's behavior when exposed to thermal loads.

The third step is to use your newly gained knowledge from step one and compare the aforementioned collapse reports to the links and opinions and collapse theories offered in threads here.

Perhaps you will alter your opinion that"I believe that there is enough physical evidence -- supported by other evidence -- to conclude ... "after your study of collapse and research of WTC reports. Perhaps not, you will ultimately believe what you choose. Life is all about choices; but as any genuine investigator or researcher will explain there are steps to understanding an incident and making that choice.

I just ask that you keep an open mind and give my suggestion some thought because finding the truth is a worthy pursuit. Good luck.

[sithknight]

17. more please

come on now: if you're a structural engineer please offer more. I'd like your two cent analysis of the collapse. Obviously I think that home-boy's allegations are nothing more than wacked out conspiracies...but I'm not an expert or an engineer. If I'm wrong, and there is a significant degree of credibility to these allegations, please say so. Like you said: people are going to believe whatever they choose to believe and you're opinion won't foreclose independent inquiry. So please, say more.

[OudeVanDagen]

19. My opinion ... I believe I've covered it rather well

in past threads ... all while taking a whole lot of punches, kicks and verbal beatings too. I'm in poor health, old and my techniques are dated ... I tire quickly and am bored to near exhaustion from the aforementioned attacks ... but I am still however very willing to answer questions about collapse in general and WTC specifically.

I strongly recommend your own independent study, and I will repeat that there is tremendous value to examining other collapse incidents BEFORE looking at WTC. No one has to be an engineer; this type of study isn't hard, but it is important to have a good ... real good understanding of the roles played by structural connections and key structural elements, and in terms such as drift, elasticity, tension, compression, dampening and thermal loading. WTC ...the collapse and the investigation process ... will NEVER be properly understood without some foundation or exposure to other collapse incidents.

If you choose to investigate other collapse scenarios, it will be best to stick with structures that had unique connections or key structural elements .... after all that's what WTC was; superlight super tall skyscrapers, that radically diverted from conventional building techniques of that era, and which also heavily relied upon key structural elements.

I'll offer these collapse incidents; the 1981 KC Hyatt Regency, the 1979 Kemper Arena, the 1978 Hartford Arena or the 1987 L'Ambiance Plaza. Each was well investigated, each was well reported by the news, and each will offer a better understanding of collapse that can be used when considering the WTC reports and formulating YOUR own opinion.

[whipzz]

14. evidence of flight 175

Hi Onebluesky and others here who know that what went down on 9/11 is Not what they are telling us.

The others who claim to know more about all this are here to fudge the issue.

Our pages are about flight 175 which was NOT UA Flight 175 B-767-222. The plane which actually flew into the building had huge unidentified objects attached to the underbelly, and were not installed overnight, let alone stuck there by terrorists in mid-flight.

Please read:

http://www.amics21.com/911


Pages are up in various sections:

-If you like to begin at the very beginning with the original articles that sparked our interest, plus the newspaper's approach explained by the ombudsman, start at:
http://www.amics21.com/911

- If you like to begin at the beginning but are not that bothered about the journalistic process, start at:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/first.html

- If you are familiar with the subject and want to go straight to the photos and digitised images. Go to:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/third.html

- If you first usually jump to the end of the novel, want to get straight to the conclusion, are short of time or are wondering how the subject could be relevant with a war going on, jump to:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/conclusions.html

and please send us your comments we would be delighted to receive feedback.

[OneBlueSky]

23. thanks for the info, whipzz . . .

this is a site I wasn't familiar with, so I'll add it to my ever-expanding collection . . .

another interesting thing that I've recently run across is a very slow motion film of the second plane hitting the tower . . . what amazed me is that, rather than a collision like you'd get slamming a car into a brick wall at a high speed, the whole plane just seems to be absorbed into the building, wings and all . . . very disconcerting to watch, and I haven't a clue what it means . . . just one more mystery to add to all the rest, I guess . . . thanks again . . .

[sithknight]

24. done with it

allright. y'all are looking for imaginary monsters when there are real ones to go after. Or worse, you're accusing real monsters of things they didn't do. If you ever come up with anything beyond photo-shoped pictures and wild speculation: bring it to the light of day. But until then I'll just go on naively beliving that Oswald shot Kennedy. "Back! And to the left! It defys the laws of phyisics I tell ya!"