Arson? Are Not. by Bytemite

I might seriously consider the flashover or similar hypothesis for 9/11 if...

1. ...the authorities behind the Official Story had used it as an explanation.

2. ...we (eyewitnesses both in and out of the buildings) hadn't seen a big burst of flame followed by a die-down into smaller flames. Eyewitness observations are consistent with an "anti-flashover" if you will.

3. ...firefighters had actually been allowed to conduct a formal and thorough arson investigation on the 3 WTC towers.

4. ...eyewitnesses inside the buildings hadn't heard "explosions" before the towers fell.

But 9/11 aside, very interesting articles. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh dear lord, let's not go THERE again! PN has enough to do with CURRENT conspiracies, let's let that one die along with "Obama was born in Kenya, is Muslim and a terrorist", please!

(That's not aimed at you, Byte. You made a cogent point.)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:50 AM

BYTEMITE

Eh, well. The explosions are actually entirely understandable based on the fire and the way certain materials might combust. And flames from a flashover can die back after it occurs, because if you think about it, that sudden intensifying of the flames would eat up a lot of oxygen.

Also, I don't trust "the authorities" to know a dang thing about science or proper investigative procedure.

But, good thoughts. The points about the firefighters and the formal investigation are particularly thought provoking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The points about the firefighters and the formal investigation are particularly thought provoking.

That's all they want.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Quote:
Firefighters for 9-11 Truth is a non-partisan association of firefighters and affiliates created to increase awareness, provide public education, demand a real investigation that follows National Standards, and provide support to our Brothers and Sisters in need. We are deeply troubled by the “official story,” and the way the rescue workers from Ground Zero are being forgotten.

We believe there is overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice, and destruction of evidence voiced even by numerous 9/11 Commissioners themselves. Senator Cleland resigned from the Commission stating, “This investigation is now compromised.”

NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 921, which is the National Standard for Fire and Explosion Investigations, very clearly indicates in numerous sections that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated. Specifically in NFPA 921 18.3.2 High Order Damage - “High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.” World Trade Center’s 1, 2, and 7 all clearly met this definition; therefore they should have been thoroughly investigated and analyzed for explosives. Specifically, the use of “exotic accelerants” should have been investigated. In NFPA 921 19.2.4 -”Exotic Accelerants,” three indicators were clearly met that should have led to a thorough investigation in to the possible use of “exotic accelerants,” specifically as stated in the guideline, “Thermite mixtures.”

So, why was the possibility of explosives, controlled demolition, or the use of “exotic accelerants” not thoroughly investigated, or even mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report?

...snip...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And flames from a flashover can die back after it occurs, because if you think about it, that sudden intensifying of the flames would eat up a lot of oxygen.

After the initial burst of flames from the plane collisions, there were no more reports of additional bursts of flames. Only the slow dying down of the flames from the collision. So, flashover is inconsistent with existing eyewitness reports.

Not saying it couldn't have happened. It just seems a bit unlikely given existing eyewitness evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:43 PM

BYTEMITE

Ah.

Although the specific phrasing in the article said that "Wood fires, ESPECIALLY ones that achieve flashover," which suggests to me that even a mostly wood fire that doesn't achieve flashover could also theoretically produce melted steel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:21 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Is there a reason that an outcome of 'melted steel' is especially desirable in explaining some event or happenstance?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is there a reason that an outcome of 'melted steel' is especially desirable in explaining some event or happenstance?

We are wondering if such phenomena could possibly melt the steel in the WTC towers and explain their collapses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:33 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am not an expert of metallurgy, but I am an avid amateur fan of swordmaking. I know that steel can lose its strength long before it loses its shape. You can make a sword next to useless by putting it to flame without a proper quench, even though it never melts.

I can only imagine similar fates await steel girders and supports of all kinds. Heat them till they lose their strength, and they will be unable to perform their former jobs.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Ah.

Although the specific phrasing in the article said that "Wood fires, ESPECIALLY ones that achieve flashover," which suggests to me that even a mostly wood fire that doesn't achieve flashover could also theoretically produce melted steel.

The wording actually says, "Wood fires, especially those that reach flashover, frequently exceed the melting point of METALS..."

Metals. I am not sure we can safely assume that they meant to say "ALL metals." Those temperatures may not include the melting point of steel, which is about 2700 deg. F.

In context, they were talking about melted metals in fires, such as "doorway thresholds." Some doorway thresholds are made of stainless steel, but a lot are made of copper and aluminum, which have lower melting points.

Even if stainless steel doorway thresholds can be melted by wood fires, with or without a flashover, it is a far cry from sufficient heat to melt 100- story-tall skyscraper steel columns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:41 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Not to belabor a point, but we should be more concerned with the temperature at which steel begins to lose its strength than the temperature at which it turns into a puddle.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Not to belabor a point, but we should be more concerned with the temperature at which steel begins to lose its strength than the temperature at which it turns into a puddle.

Belabor away. It's a crucial point.

This source explains the steel failure this way:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Quote:
Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

In other words, the authors believe 1) the fire was hot enough to soften but not melt the steel, and 2) the uneven softening of the steel caused distortions that reduced its ability to perform and caused the building collapse.

Sounds reasonable. BUT.

1. Some engineers dispute that the jet fuel fire was hot enough to soften steel. (This is why Byte's alternative explanation for the heat is significant.)

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

2. Molten steel WAS found at the site and reported by numerous eyewitnesses. The fuel fires do not adequately explain this finding.

Wood fire/flashover may...but personally, I find it somewhat hard to believe wood fire could have caused sufficient heat to melt even some of the steel columns. These aren't doorway thresholds we're talking about.

Overall, I think it is an interesting alternative explanation and something to keep in mind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:19 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

canttakesky: remind me: don't you believe that all of the pilots were in on the "plot?"

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:31 PM

BYTEMITE

I'm not sure what other metals are used to in support structure framework. Cast iron?

EDIT: Oh, I see you answered this.

Aluminum? That seems unadvisable. Aluminum has poor malleability and tensile strength. It is however light weight. Maybe on higher floors.

Anyway, thanks CTS.

And I think even if there isn't any issue with the progression of the collapse, there still is some question about the negligence, incompetence, or possibly involvement of government entities in the attack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 28, 2011 6:00 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Molten steel WAS found at the site and reported by numerous eyewitnesses."

Hello,

I enjoy that most of the people considering this problem here are doing so from a rational, hesitant place.

Some things that disturb me are the words ‘can’t’ ‘must’ and ‘only.’ These are words that surface during most investigations into a potential conspiracy.

It CAN’T be X. Y can ONLY be explained by Z. Therefore Z MUST be true.

While these three words accurately reflect the reasoning process within the passionate conspiracy investigator, they seldom correspond to the actual realms of possibility.

I hold more closely to skeptics who are skeptical even of their skepticism. COULD it be something other than X? Are other explanations POSSIBLE? MIGHT something else be true?

I like the COULD POSSIBLE MIGHT crowd much more than the CAN’T ONLY MUST crowd.

On the question of molten metals:

I wonder whether different molten metals and materials are sufficiently self-evident to an eye-witness.

To provide a parallel example, I have seen footage of large support beams with what appear to be diagonal cuts in them. I have seen people exclaim that such diagonal cuts can only have been produced by some kind of controlled burn/demolition device. But I have heard industry professionals explain that such diagonal-cut beams are normal parts of a building structure.

It reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. I wonder how many witnessed events are entirely accurate and yet entirely misinterpreted.

When things get technical beyond my ability to understand them, I often return to the human element.

Why?

‘Why’ is the question that most concerns me.

We all know that individuals commandeered jet planes and crashed them into buildings.

(Some conspiracy theorists suggest robot-planes were used instead of regular planes, but this seems unnecessarily complex and awkward to me. There are surely real people who would gladly pilot real planes into real buildings for a variety of reasons.)

If we assume that some nefarious persons also snuck into critical locations to plant demolitions charges, we are left with the human question of WHY?

Imagine a world where the towers didn’t fall. Imagine merely that they were struck by planes and hundreds died, with the buildings themselves suffering large quantities of damage. Possibly the towers would be condemned, or possibly repaired at great expense. Meanwhile, a plane was piloted into the Pentagon, and another plane was stopped enroute to the White House or some other critical destination.

Are Americans still shocked? I think so. Do we still have provocative television images of victims? I think so. Do we still shut down the airspace? I think so. Do we still enact tougher security guidelines? I think so. Does the stock market still get put on pause? I think so. Do we still go to war in retaliation? I think so.

What on earth do controlled demolitions add to the mix?

I have never heard a convincing argument about WHY.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 28, 2011 6:22 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I have never heard a convincing argument about WHY.

I've not heard one either, certainly not one that didn't have a couple dozen easier ways to achieve.
"To justify invasion." Didn't an altered CIA report (WMD) do that?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 28, 2011 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I have never heard a convincing argument about WHY.

Because it destroys, or at least makes very difficult to obtain, evidence of exactly what happened - consider that most arsons are committed in hopes of hiding another crime.

Plus - two other incidents worthy of mention.

Oklahoma City - That building was SUPPOSED to come down, but several of the internally placed explosives failed to detonate, and before anyone whinges remember that I posted the actual fucking radio logs of their discovery right here at least twice before.
Of course, it was all supposed to be blamed on the truck - although since it was never properly investigated beyond STILL naming McVeigh as scapegoat in defiance of the evidence, who bloody knows.... questions still abound.

WTC1993 - Those buildings, or at least one of them, was supposed to come down THEN, only the bad guys overestimated the destructive power of the bomb THAT THE FBI GAVE THEM - and if that building did come down, you really think the source of the bomb would have been provable in that case ?
Hell, were it not for Emad Salem realizing he was being set up by his handlers and taping the conversations, we wouldn't even know that much.

So yeah, there's a little history there, which makes folk look more than a little sideways at a convenient, evidence-removing collapse, oh yes.

Not to mention an endless history of bullshit claims being used to justify wars, from "remember the maine" to the gulf of tonkin, and in historical retrospect, EVERY SINGLE ONE has proven to be bullshit.

So it's entirely possible to be suspicious as hell, to call bullshit on the ridiculous "official story", without subscribing to any particular or potential theory at all.

The questions *I* want answered ?
What about the guys in place and filming it ?
What about those stock trades ?
What about the Odigo message ?
What about those technologically *impossible* phone calls ?

I think answering the first three is kind of important in showing foreknowledge, and the latter may show complicity - but being that no actual investigation has ever been allowed to proceed regarding these things, that fact alone is enough for me to call "bullshit!" regardless of what may or may not have ACTUALLY happened.

Clear ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 28, 2011 1:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Frem,

I hope you will not forget the high esteem and regard with which I hold you if I quibble on some points.

On the issue of Oklahoma City:

I spent a short ten months of my life dispatching police in a fair sized, modern city. Those radio transmissions are replete with things people said that weren't true, but that they believed to be true at the time. Officers who claimed to see a suspect, and indicated that they were giving chase, only to discover that they were confused or mistaken at some point. Suspicious devices believed to be bombs, but later proving to be mundane objects. Radio logs are enough to begin a line of inquiry, and would certainly make me wonder. However, I can not use them as irrefutable proof. It may be that someone thought they were removing explosive devices from the building. But such devices may have later proved to be either mundane or utterly unrelated to the event. Every bit of clever imagining used to formulate the conspiracy theory must also be applied to explaining the events in more ordinary fashion, or you are investigating a conclusion instead of an event.

On the issue of collapsing the towers to hide evidence of a crime- I have heard this before and am dubious of it. I am hard pressed to imagine a crime at these towers that could only be hidden by collapsing them. I believe that the towers would be utterly evacuated in the wake of an attack. The government could arrange for their special investigators to enter the building and search for or remove whatever they wished. What massive hunk of evidence could only be dealt with by enacting the dangerous practice of controlled demolitions? (Dangerous because of the difficulty of setting it up undetected, not in the explosions themselves.) Some remarkable evidence too bulky to remove, and easier to detect than the (pardon my term) ninja demolitions technicians and their devices.

As a youth, I saw an African American man being beaten by a collection of unscrupulous officers, so I am not surprised to find cameras in the right place at the right time. The world is full of cameras and cameramen, both professional and amateur.

Stock trades that may have taken advantage of the event are quite curious, as is the behavior of the cell phones. However, I have not seen the experiments which were conducted to duplicate the cell phone events (or fail to duplicate them.)

I do not know what the 'Odigo message' refers to.

The great irony to me is that the most plausible conspiracy theory is almost never touted. That the CIA or other Intelligence organs may have clandestinely directed or aided a terrorist group to fly planes into our buildings. No odd demolitions needed. No drone planes. No missiles. No nothing. Just a couple guys and some cash. Indeed, with the current preponderance of gritty entertainment, we are almost conditioned to believe that our government might very well do such a thing to achieve its ends.

But when strange and implausible mysteries are layered upon the conspiracy, it becomes an X-Files style Man In Black story that actually serves to discredit itself.

Is Truth stranger than Fiction? Perhaps it is. But if so, I will really need to know Why.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 28, 2011 5:11 PM

Multiple radio logs from different agencies ?
Live news footage ?
Eyewitnesses ?
(you can skip this ahead to 1:00 without missin anythin worth the trouble)

Where is your threshold then ?
Seriously, how can people FORGET something all over the damn news for a week ?

As for the Odigo message.

Quote:
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

That it WAS sent, was never in doubt.

Mind you, some of this was investigated initially, I know the stock trades and this message were, and then the investigation was suddenly dropped - I can only surmise because it might have reached conclusions incompatible with the lets-bomb-afganistan rhetoric.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 28, 2011 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
canttakesky: remind me: don't you believe that all of the pilots were in on the "plot?"

No, I don't believe all or any of the pilots were in on the "plot," if indeed there was a "plot."

As a reminder, this is what I believe about 9/11:

1. There has never been a full and impartial investigation of 9/11. Evidence was destroyed and/or classified. Evidence was neglected. Important questions, such as the obvious one of arson, was never answered. More than 3000 persons were murdered, and the subsequent investigation was more than sloppy. It is unconscionable.

2. Nothing in the official story is impossible, but many, many aspects of it is highly improbable. The probability of one improbable event is low. But the probability of a string of improbable events one after another is extremely low. I believe it is extremely unlikely that the official story is completely true from A to Z.

That's it. That's what I believe. Nothing more. I don't subscribe to any "plots" or "theories" or accusations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 28, 2011 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It CAN’T be X. Y can ONLY be explained by Z. Therefore Z MUST be true.

As an aside, some people who accept the official story use exactly the same logical reasoning.

The perpetrator can't be X. Y can only have been committed by Z, because suspecting X is unthinkable. Therefore, Z must be the only reasonable suspect.

Quote:

On the question of molten metals:

I wonder whether different molten metals and materials are sufficiently self-evident to an eye-witness.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf (pages 5 - 18)

Here is the existing evidence on molten steel.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Here is the rebuttal.

You can decide for yourself.

Quote:
I have seen people exclaim that such diagonal cuts can only have been produced by some kind of controlled burn/demolition device. But I have heard industry professionals explain that such diagonal-cut beams are normal parts of a building structure.

Right.

Quote:
Why?

Two possibilities arise in my mind.

1. To destroy evidence. If indeed there was a "plot," the plotters would want to destroy as much evidence as they can that would link the crime scene to them. Sure, the destruction itself would raise suspicion, but suspicion is still preferable to hard evidence.

2. Secondary target in the attack. For example, maybe some powerful Wall Street guy says, "While you're at it, could you destroy my entire company, as well, so I can achieve X goal?" As they said in Speed, "Mess like that, they don't even count body parts." Good way to hide a secondary target. Or for example, in the collapse of WTC7, "Let's destroy the FBI offices in WTC7 to hide some evidence there."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 2:41 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I've not read all the posts yet, but this jumped to mind while scrolling down. It's an article that just ran in our local weekly alt-publication.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2011-10-21/letters-at-3am-the-m
ob-9-11-and-your-garbage/

He makes the point that not only the steel, but the concrete and ALL the building materials - AND the inspection processes to verify their quality - are all suspect, because the towers were built at the very height of the Mafia's power in NYC.

So, what if you had steel that was just a bit under spec, and concrete the same, rivets to match, etc.? All of it is ALMOST good enough, but none of it is quite there. Now fly a fully-loaded, fully fueled widebody airliner into it and set it all afire, and see what you get.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
He makes the point that not only the steel, but the concrete and ALL the building materials

Excellent point. That is another "unthinkable" explanation that has been consistently rejected by the Official Story: WTC towers fell because they were all defectively constructed.

I guess they must protect the powers from mammoth liability claims. Back to Greenwald's two-tiered justice system and Occupy's two-tiered financial system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Frem,

It is certainly irrefutable that multiple individuals believed they were removing additional explosive devices at Oklahoma. I would be very interested in learning what came to pass to modify their belief.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 9:51 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
canttakesky: remind me: don't you believe that all of the pilots were in on the "plot?"
No, I don't believe all or any of the pilots were in on the "plot," if indeed there was a "plot."

As a reminder, this is what I believe about 9/11:

1. There has never been a full and impartial investigation of 9/11. Evidence was destroyed and/or classified. Evidence was neglected. Important questions, such as the obvious one of arson, was never answered. More than 3000 persons were murdered, and the subsequent investigation was more than sloppy. It is unconscionable.

2. Nothing in the official story is impossible, but many, many aspects of it is highly improbable. The probability of one improbable event is low. But the probability of a string of improbable events one after another is extremely low. I believe it is extremely unlikely that the official story is completely true from A to Z.

That's it. That's what I believe. Nothing more. I don't subscribe to any "plots" or "theories" or accusations.

Thanks, glad I asked.

The 911 truthers remind me a lot of the birthers - if you read their claims it's hard to not have those moments, "wow, that is something.... curious... huh" it can be a surprise how much doubt they can cast on what appears to be open and closed. But then you step back and it just seems too impossible. I hear what you say about a lot of unlikely events strung together, but always the still larger unlikely event of W having the gumption and ability to pull this off (or even be a part of it) when other avenues where available, trumps every other possibility.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Thanks, glad I asked.

I'm glad you asked too. Cause usually people just starting attacking positions I don't believe instead of asking me if I believe them first. Your rational approach is very refreshing!

Quote:
I hear what you say about a lot of unlikely events strung together, but always the still larger unlikely event of W having the gumption and ability to pull this off (or even be a part of it) when other avenues where available, trumps every other possibility.

That is the main problem. We have suspects X, Y, and Z. They all have their pros and cons going for them. Some people find it highly unlikely for it to be X and Y, so it must be Z. Likewise, some people find it highly unlikely to be Z and X, so it must be Y. You go around in vicious, never-ending circles thinking like this, and end up in bitterly divided X factions, Y factions, and Z factions.

What we really need to do is:

1. Approach the problem with a blank slate and no assumptions. Start with the hard evidence and do a proper forensic/arson investigation of the crime scene. Hate to say the freakin' obvious, but we need some objectivity on this question. To date, we've been doing the investigative equivalent of having the relatives of murder victims and many of the suspects lining up the evidence. It's called conflict of interest. They should recuse themselves and allow someone in who is not afraid to look at ALL suspects objectively.

Let the HARD evidence point the way.

2. Stop limiting the possible explanations with compartamentalized stories. X, Y, or Z? What about A, B, or C? What about X AND Y working with B, involving C who doesn't know that A was helping Z to support X? Who says it can't be anyone or everyone? We are always looking for the magic bullet, but real life is always more complicated than that.

For example, what if it really WAS Al-Qaeda? But a foreign country's intelligence decides Al-Qaeda's plans were insufficient to pull it off, so they help them along, in secret. Bribe/blackmail a few key persons in the US govt for them. They do it because they have financial interests if a war were to be started in X country. Word gets out, and another country sends operatives to destroy a secondary target in WTC7--piggyback, if you will, on someone else's operation. But they get found out by a couple of key American players who would benefit financially from the destruction of certain companies in WTC 1 and 2. So they piggyback a tertiary target using the same tactics. Govt investigators find out, but they cover it all up to cover their asses and to protect certain strategic alliances they need.

I'm just pulling that out of my ass. But the point is the suspects don't have to be either / or. It doesn't have to be Al-Qaeda or the US Govt, Osama or Bush.

We need to approach the problem with an open mind is all.

(Incidentally, I find it highly unlikely that W was part of the attack as well. He doesn't seem sufficiently competent to be trusted with such an enormous project. If I were a "plotter," I wouldn't want him in on it, would you? Just sayin'.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
He makes the point that not only the steel, but the concrete and ALL the building materials
Excellent point. That is another "unthinkable" explanation that has been consistently rejected by the Official Story: WTC towers fell because they were all defectively constructed.

I guess they must protect the powers from mammoth liability claims. Back to Greenwald's two-tiered justice system and Occupy's two-tiered financial system.

Bingo. Because the implications are far larger. Just imagine the reaction if it were revealed that shoddy construction and inferior materials played a major role in the collapse of the towers. What would that mean for every other building in New York, and for that matter, everywhere else?

Still, the actual CAUSE of the collapse, I still believe, was a pair of fully-laden jumbo jets full of fuel being flown into the buildings. Shoddy materials and workmanship played a key role, perhaps, but the buildings wouldn't have fallen without those impacts and fires.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
canttakesky: remind me: don't you believe that all of the pilots were in on the "plot?"
No, I don't believe all or any of the pilots were in on the "plot," if indeed there was a "plot."

As a reminder, this is what I believe about 9/11:

1. There has never been a full and impartial investigation of 9/11. Evidence was destroyed and/or classified. Evidence was neglected. Important questions, such as the obvious one of arson, was never answered. More than 3000 persons were murdered, and the subsequent investigation was more than sloppy. It is unconscionable.

2. Nothing in the official story is impossible, but many, many aspects of it is highly improbable. The probability of one improbable event is low. But the probability of a string of improbable events one after another is extremely low. I believe it is extremely unlikely that the official story is completely true from A to Z.

That's it. That's what I believe. Nothing more. I don't subscribe to any "plots" or "theories" or accusations.

Agreed. And I'd add to that list of "highly improbable" the string of events that would be necessary to carry out a massive conspiracy of this kind.

Did the government perpetrate the act? I've never believed it.

Did they use the act as a pretense to launch multiple wars, enact the already-written USA PATRIOT Act, and more? Abso-mother-fucking-lutely they did.

And that in itself should be investigated, too.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:12 PM

DREAMTROVE

This thread made me smile. It's ruled by logic and reason and science, like FFF used to be, rather than by partisan politics.

I remember the case well. To me, it was an excellent reminder of how the world of science truly is: Someone with more knowledge than me can come up with an explanation which I find completely convincing, and then someone with even more knowledge can convince me that the first person was entirely wrong.

I've used it on occasion to demonstrate how logic flows in wildly different situations, and once you get people actually thinking, and doubting, and removing themselves from everything they think they know, then people finally begin to start thinking.

Re: 9.11, no one who has any agenda is ever going to get close to the science of it, so they will never get close to the truth, because as you dig through this one, the evidence seems to go back and forth, and if you can't go back and forth with it, you can't get to the truth.

After a couple years I figured out a few things: The team needed at least on inside man and at least one muslim terrorist or the plot just didn't work. That aside, there might be many other people involved, more inside guys? more terrorists? israelis? But if I just stick to what is certain, the picture becomes clearer. Next thing I was sure of was that the building could not come down without explosives. But that's a how, not a who. Keep digging and you come to different answers at different times. If you had an agenda, one of those times, you'd either have your answer, or be presented with one you really didn't want, so you'd stop searching, and you'd never really get to the bottom of it.

Criminal law at times can be pure, in that you have no interest at all in the result. If everyone were logical, disinterested and scientific, we'd probably get a lot more done. To that end, I've not been posting here, to get more done. I don't know how that's working out yet, it's hard to tell, things still very hectic here.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:33 PM

Nice to see you again, DT.

Though, you have my condolences for falling back into the lair of the time vampires.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Did the government perpetrate the act? I've never believed it.

The government is a body of people, most notably ungoverned.

It is hard to accuse "the govt" because it is made up of so many people. Are we talking elected officials, appointed civil servants, federal employees, military leaders?

Is it extremely unlikely that ALL or MOST of them are involved in some conspiracy? I would say impossible.

Is it extremely unlikely that a few "officials" in key positions are involved in some conspiracy? Maybe, maybe not.

Have you read the Millenium Series by Stieg Larsson? Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? He describes a pretty credible govt conspiracy with only a couple of key players, a handful of goons, a few easily manipulated govt stooges, and a lot of cover up so all the good, decent people in the rest of "govt" don't find out.

We agree there is a govt cover up. Which implies SOME people in "govt" knows the real story. Now whether those same people helped implement the attacks, that is a different question. But it is not SO improbable that if they are willing to cover it up, maybe they might have been willing to help carry it out as well. Or maybe they did help carry it out, but didn't know they were doing it at the time--and that is why they covered it up later.

Here is an example. Dick Cheney. Before June 2001, the Air Force intercepted all wayward planes. In June 2001, Dick Cheney changed the rules so that the military had to get approval before chasing down air space violators. For 3 months, our air space was the most poorly protected it had been in all of US aviation history. As it happened on 9/11/01, approval to chase the planes was delayed, so the Air Force didn't dispatch on time. After 9/11/01, the rules got changed back to immediate interception of violators.

What a convenient window of opportunity for Al-Qaeda. Their mission COULD NOT HAVE succeeded otherwise. Were those low-rent losers able to manipulate Dick Cheney and Air Force regulations? I think it unlikely.

Dick Cheney opened that crucial window of opportunity. He did it either knowingly as a conspirator or unknowingly as a stooge. I think it more likely that he was an unwitting stooge. Perhaps even an unwilling stooge (blackmail or physical threats). But he would know who put him up to it.

If I were to reopen the investigation, I would start with subpoenaing Cheney, and dig from there.

It is not hard to imagine manipulating key govt players/employees like Cheney into doing certain things that seem harmless at the time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 2:04 AM

Quote:
What a convenient window of opportunity for Al-Qaeda. Their mission COULD NOT HAVE succeeded otherwise. Were those low-rent losers able to manipulate Dick Cheney and Air Force regulations? I think it unlikely.

Or did they have nothing to do with changing the rules, and only happened to notice the strategic implications of the lax security and exploit it? Notice also what they used for weapons - box openers. The kind of silly, innocuous thing that most people didn't even recognize before 9/11, much less consider it a lethal weapon. I know this because of my line of work, and because I used to carry just such a box cutter in my back pocket most of the time, and had a tendency to forget about it when I went to my credit union - which was at that time located inside the IRS headquarters! To get to the credit union, I had to go through two metal detectors and three armed security guards (these were put in place after the OKC bombing because this was a federal building). Nobody ever once remarked on the box cutter when I tossed it in the bucket with my keys and wallet before stepping through the metal detector. Three armed guards, and none of them recognized such an item as a potential weapon.

Al-Qaeda on 9/11 pulled off quite an effective strike, and they did so by utilizing weaknesses in our security and taking advantage of those weaknesses.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or did they have nothing to do with changing the rules, and only happened to notice the strategic implications of the lax security and exploit it?

The alleged hijacker pilots were enrolled in flight school the summer of 2000, one full year before Cheney conveniently changed the intercept rules.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_Septem
ber_11_attacks

Like I said, had Cheney not done that, their entire airplane hijacking plan from a year beforehand would have failed.

Was it mere coincidence, or did someone help the hijackers along, the way a grown up might remove obstacles in the path of a recently walking baby?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:40 PM

Well, if you wanna talk anomolies that make one go WTF?

What about the fact that many of the alledged hijackers have been found, alive, uninvolved, and annoyed about such accusations ?

Or, even better...

IF Mohammed Atta was the ringleader, something which has never been proven to my satisfaction, then what the hell was he doing on Abramoffs casino boat living it up and hobnobbing with Republican party bigwigs ?

There's plenty enough things to call bullshit on the so-called official story without actually delving into what might or might not have occured.

One place I am prepared to give a slight benefit of the doubt is just how certain preparations which did in fact save many lives were conveniently in place ahead of time - cause I *SUSPECT* (i.e. insufficient proof exists to determine) that some folks within our gov agencies had either foreknowledge or suspicions which were ignored or denied by superiors, and acted in a fashion unattributable to them (i.e. covering their ass) to set up response resources and personnel in place just in case.

Prettymuch the same way one acts in a business, when the boss won't listen to you and you find a way to mitigate the damage something is going to cause in such a way you can't be called out on it.

Folks like PN always think in terms of great, grand conspiracies, but really there's no such thing any more than crabs walking in lockstep is a hive mind - what you have are all amount of little ones mixed in with office politics, blamestorming, ass-covering and obfuscation, and the only reason it LOOKS any kind of organized is because partisan jackasses in pursuit of avarice and ambition are generally dumb bastards and operate on a very predictable set of impulses, thus with the same situation, they'll all do prettymuch the same thing - but no more actually ORGANISED than a bunch of crabs marching in supposed lockstep, because they too are reacting to stimuli in predictable patterns.

But as often as I tell folk that, it never does seem to sink in, never - a massive psychological blind spot via willful ignorance, conditioning or a simple inability to understand anything more complex than binary choices, I guess.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 1:53 AM

Frem, as an aside, did you ever see the AMC series "Rubicon"? It was a one-season show, 13 episodes, cancelled/not renewed (sound like a familiar situation?), but I thought it was really good.

It takes place inside a thinktank that's been tasked with finding and preventing the next 9/11-style attack. It's only when they actually find something that the trouble starts, though.

I loved it, mostly because it's *NOT* anything like "24" - the action was slower, more thought-out, more character-driven. Less "American" in its plotting and execution, and more like the first few seasons of MI-5.

Check it out if you get a chance.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 6:54 PM