Quote:

---

The real story is actually better than the one we told," a NORAD general admitted to 9/11-commission staffers when confronted with evidence from the tapes that contradicted his original testimony. And so it seems.

Subpoenaed by the commission during its investigation, the recordings have never been played publicly beyond a handful of sound bites presented during the commission's hearings. Last September, as part of my research for the film United 93, on which I was an associate producer, I requested copies from the Pentagon. I was played snippets, but told my chances of hearing the full recordings were nonexistent. So it was a surprise, to say the least, when a military public-affairs officer e-mailed me, a full seven months later, saying she'd been cleared, finally, to provide them.

---

Quote:

---

The problem, Scoggins told me later, was that American Airlines refused to confirm for several hours that its plane had hit the tower. This lack of confirmation caused uncertainty that would be compounded in a very big way as the attack continued. (Though airlines have their own means of monitoring the location of their planes and communicating with their pilots, they routinely go into information lockdown in a crisis.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
]So much for the conspiracy nut case crowd and thier view that "Bush Knew!"

---

Quote:

---

unless you go beyond the mainstream, you will not be given the whole truth, period. the mainstream WILL NEVER accurately investigate the secret societies, and the corporate powers and officials who operate this machine destined for global totalitarian tyranny

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
If you build a tower of Lego blocks, support it, and set out, then I come punch it it falls to the side, not straight down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
Look at the descent of the buildings.

okay? they went straight down. They did NOT fall to the side, one reporter even remarked on the fact that they greatly resembled controlled demolition.

If you build a tower of Lego blocks, support it, and set out, then I come punch it it falls to the side, not straight down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
In other words, you don't want to put in the work to have an informed opinion.

That's understandable.

And that's why I called bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
If you build a tower of Lego blocks, support it, and set out, then I come punch it it falls to the side, not straight down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dayve:
there will always be different opinions of what exactly caused the collapse

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The potential explanations that he presented were plausible. If they had not been plausible, he would've been ripped to shreds in the Q and A(If you don't believe me, you've never seen academics at conferences expressing disagreement).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I read the article. I didn't see any hard hitting questions reported. I'd like to ask some hard hitting questions myself. Maybe you can tell me if they were asked and what the answer was.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
My first thought was...

"These yahoos are in charge of national air defense ?"

What a mess.

Afaik - no building with a steel core structure has EVER collapsed due to a fire, and certainly not straight down like that, it's entirely suspicious and bears the one thing that has not occurred, an actual investigation.

What evidence and testimony that the public in general can get their hands on with a little work is in fact quite disturbing, but is no substitute for an actual investigation by folks who know what the hell they're doing and have no stake in the outcome.

Be it complicity, incompetence, exploitation of events, some stuff went very very wrong that day, and those responsible should be held accountable, instead of being allowed to obfuscate and delay till they're safely out of office... cause no way in hell *should* this have been able to happen, ergo, some folks screwed it up good, at multiple points on the chain of command.

It also bears thinking about that we spend X amount of our money on a national defense and crapload of alphabet agencies that don't do the job.. why reinforce and reward utter and complete incompetence, defeat, even ?

Why do we spend so much tax money on stuff so good at making our lives miserable, but so piss-poor at doing the job they're assigned to do ?

Until a full, impartial and professional investigation of events by folk not involved in the political process occurs, no resolution of this issue is going to happen, and *because* such a thing has not occurred, imma have to side with the folks who smell a rat - although without specifying the breed and size thereof, capisce?

Incompetence is no excuse, not on my tax dime it ain't.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
You missed the part where I was sitting in the audience.

---

Quote:

---

So let's cut to the chase. Based on everything you've read about WTC and you had to wager on what was the most likely scenario, where would you put all your family's money?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
If I HAD to jump to a conclusion right now, given what I know so far, I'd say SOMEONE demolished those buildings. I don't know who.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
"World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse"

---

Quote:

---

This video is definitely a promo piece that works for the official story, but hidden inside this great documentary are interviews with professors that actually take the official story apart.

Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, is interviewed in this presentation during the segment on the British Steel Industrial Fire Test of 1995, where a 5 story building filled with office furniture, computers, paper, and other items, in a non-fireproofed environment was set ablaze and allowed to burn for several hours. And what happened? The building stood there with no chance of a collapse. The video footage of the test is interspliced with Barnett's interview, where he states: "When steel is bare -- when it heats up -- it gets weaker. It's not that it melts in a fire, in fact, fires--normal fires--are not hot enough to melt steel. Even if you were, for example, to use an unusual fuel -- like kerosene -- you cannot achieve temperatures hot enough to melt steel." He then adds, "In over 20 years I have not seen -- until recently -- a protected steel structure that has collapsed in a fire."

His statement might be meaningless to you if he was just some schmoe from around the way, but Professor Barnett was one of the chief investigators of the government's NIST/FEMA team that was tasked with determining what made the towers come down.

**It should be noted that the NIST/FEMA investigation even concluded that jet fuel cannot produce temperatures that burn hot enough to melt steel.

Another great interview/segment is with Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who is shown examining the steel wreckage of the WTC. He says, "What you see here is actually very critical - very, very important. Perhaps, this is the most important piece I have found so far. ...This is the inside face of [the] back columns. ...What you see here is, first of all, it bent. That was due to [an] explosion - but more importantly - this has a signature of [an] explosion. This has happened due to explosive material hitting this column and making that bulge. So this is [the] floor where [an] explosion happened, and the windows are blown away. Everything is burned. Even [the] fire-proofing on this floor is burned and glazed to the steel."

Any 9/11 researchers out there would be smart to grab this video and archive it. There are extraordinary CGI diagrams that show how immense the construction of the towers was, including the 47-steel core columns that made up the support for the buildings.

One conclusion is echoed over and over in this film, and that's on the morning of 9/11 everyone watching was amazed and shocked that the towers fell the way they did -- after all, NO ONE ever thought a steel skyscraper could collapse from just fire. Throughout the history of architecture, no steel structure has ever fallen due to fire, but on September 11th, "they" want you to believe that two 110-story buildings, and a third 47-story building did just that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
So for a controlled demolition we'd have to believe people working in those buildings just missed the hundreds of workmen removing and weakening support struts. That no one bothered to ask what the FK the guys with the wheel barrows full of plastic explosives thought they were doing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
If I HAD to jump to a conclusion right now, given what I know so far, I'd say SOMEONE demolished those buildings. I don't know who.

Maybe it was more terrorists who are now walking around scott free because the govt refuses to investigate that scenario. I'd be less conspiracy minded if the govt would at least address this possibility. The govt's obtuse refusal to acknowledge the demolition theory at all is what makes me suspicious. Is the govt trying to hide complicity or gross incompetence by sweeping this possibility under the rug?

I dunno.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Have you ever seen a fire fueled by airplane fuel?

---

Quote:

---

Incidentally, kerosene burns blue. And the fires of WTC were bright orange, like gasoline fires.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Okay. Now let's establish how much confidence you have in that position. What percentage of your family's assets would you wager that, "SOMEONE demolished those buildings"? Seventy-five percent? Fifty percent? Twenty-five percent?

---

Quote:

---

There is no indication that the professors and graduate students I recognize think the presented alternatives are implausible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Incidentally, kerosene burns blue. And the fires of WTC were bright orange, like gasoline fires.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
67.587%? Good grief, what's with trying to force me into a corner, just because I dare to ask questions?
...
There could be MORE THAN ONE plausible explanation. What I want to know is why only ONE of them is presented as the ONLY plausible explanation. Why do people who mention other plausible explanations immediately ridiculed as a conspiracy nut instead of having their questions answered?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Hi -......... I've never posted in the real world before... it's very scary... *sticking in one toe carefully*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
How come no one noticed them.

---

Quote:

---

How come a building collapsing after being hit by a plane is unbelievable

---

Quote:

---

Hold on, this suggests no planes actually hit the WTC, those were some pretty amazing special effects...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
But what color does wood burn?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
"Which one of those theories would you spend money on?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Building 7 was "taken down". No conspiracy. It was demolished by the owner. He admitted it. I saw him say it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm gonna duck before I get stoned. I asked my questions, and that's that.

---