My daughter dropped out of the University of Maine in Orono because she simply couldn't handle the insane leftist tactics used by the professors. Her dream was to become the next Fox News correspondent.

In online posts (which are required for many classes) she and another young man were constantly criticized by students and professors alike for any views that did not correspond with their own. In fact, once she and the other young man mentioned that they were Christian and Republican, they were both asked by the professor to stop stirring the pot or drop the class.

One such issue occurred because they were told to watch the PBS Buster Rabbit show which highlighted two lesbians from Vermont raising a family. When my daughter and the other young man cited biblical scripture against homosexuality, they were called VERY damaging names by the other students, which went unnoticed by the professor. However, as soon as either one of them attempted rebuttal, the professor sent them emails telling them to stop, and threatened them with failure in the class if they did not.

She stuck it out for a year and almost had a nervous breakdown. She is now taking classes online from another university, and is doing well.

I got so carried away with my little story that I never even addressed this nutjob and his insanity. I honestly don't know what to say. It reminds me of a story I heard recently - about a staunch liberal who was asked if she was concerned about all of the evangelicals and Catholics having huge families, possibly outnumbering the libs. Her response: "Let them have all the children they want. As soon as we get our hands on them in the public school system, they'll be liberals". I'm totally paraphrasing here from memory - but that about sums it up. Perhaps I even read it on wizbang? Long story short: I teach for the public school system at the adult level... but I HOMESCHOOL my own kids. Sad commentary, I know.

It is a good thing that he is not teaching something controversial - like the differences between men and women - he might have to fear for his job.

Bottom line, places like University of Wisconsin (and University of Maine) are jokes.

It won't be too soon when these places are dismantled into housing or other uses and replaced by the likes of University of Phoenix On Line.

My son had a similar problem of lack of academic freedom at the University of MI. The Fem-Nazis there suppressed his speech and screwed with his grades when he tried to debate them in class. And he is a left-wing liberal! He had to take an extra semester to make up for the class he failed - and it turned him off to his previously avowed career in health care management due to the plurality of said folks in the Graduate Department he would have worked in.

I have done hours and hours of research on 9/11. Unfortunatley, I have come to the same conclusions. Those towers came down too fast for it to have been a pancake collapse. They fell nearly at freefall speed so the official story of one floor collapsing and hitting the next and so on is not possible, because objects can't fall through steel and concrete as fast as they fall through the air. And that doesn't even get into WTC 7, the 47 story building that most people don't even know collapsed on 9/11. And then theres the hundreds of eyewitnesses saying they saw, heard, or felt explosions. And then theres the footage, where you can see explosions as much as 60 stories below where its collapsing! No doubt, there were bombs in the towers, and sadly that would imply an inside job, because 19 muslims with boxcutters arent sneaky enough to plant all those bombs and trick the entire mainstream media and 9/11 commision report into telling lies. If anyone disagrees, write me an email at nickspinner@gmail.com

Here's a post about another denial problem, with a criticism of LaShawn Barber.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/prussian_blue_naacp.php

It seems denial exists on the left and the right.

Nick,

Cuckoo, Cuckoo!

Spin another tale.

If you wish to understand Professor Kevin Barrett's views, then please visit this site below and watch all the lectures and videos.

This event was not as black-and-white as it appeared on the surface.

http://www.gieis.uni.cc/

A survey conducted in Wisconsin concluded 66% of people support the Professor's right to teach his views in class and a full 76% support his right to those views.

View the information for yourselves and then decide. You can't judge anything if you do not both understand and know the available evidence.

I think you owe those who died on 9/11 just a little of your time, if nothing else.

Nick,

You're an idiot. And so is that nutjob professor. Good Lord. When did 'academics' decide to abandon reason for madness?

"When did 'academics' decide to abandon reason for madness?"

You are talking like there is some form of credible official account of the events.

There is not.

It turns out, once you read the report, that there is nos cientific substance and everything you "think" you know about 9/11, is nothing more than media spin.

NIST received 236 samples, over 1 year after the collapse of the WTC. They were forced to assume the building collapsed due to the impacts and fires.

There is no scientific evidence to support that conclusion, because the majority of the steel was shipped out of the country undr armed guard to be melted down in China...

This was BEFORE any investigation had begun.

Something stinks in DC...

Ya know, out of all the conspircies I've heard in my lifetime, I like this one the best. It beats JFK hands down. These whack jobs believe:
1: That Bush sent in a crack team of explosives experts, past WTC security, building maint. engineers, office workers and janitorial workers for months while wiring the buildings, without anyone ever questioning why or what they were doing there. Then depended upon no other maint subcontractor to discover the explosives while doing their work above ceiling.
2: Flew remote controlled airliners into WTC without any airline ever missing a jet, employee, or customer. Then depended on the precision fall of both buildings upon detonation AFTER being hit by an airliner. (but decided to go with the missle option on the Pentagon.)
3: There is no Al Qaeda (cough)
4: Flight 93 was blown up. (Don't ask why you would blow up your own remote controlled airliner)
5: Everyone involved has kept their mouth shut about the entire operation since day one. Not ONE leak. Not even a whisper. (but yet we can't plant some WMD's to cover our ass when we need to)

Their conspiracy goes so deep I can see why they need a course to study it

Here they come, the 9/11 conspiracy network has been notified.

if anyone looks at the evidence then they will see. you can choose to deny it, but when you look at World Trade Center 7, that's the smoking gun. Well actually theres many. I just chose to stick with reality. It was a controlled demolition. nickspinner@gmail.com

Yo, I was there with my kids hearing, then watching state sponsored terror. We are alive today no thanks to sceptics. I hope you all enjoy the comming police state. Israel loves our stupid debate!

Now, now, now. Nick is NOT an idiot.

Nick is dumb. Dumb cannot be cured, it is something you are born with, like red hair. Stupid can be corrected by education, but dumb is forever.

Give it up. Useless to even try to debate old Nick.

Hey Luke, argue with me! I'm a 15 year old from the Bay Area. If i'm so dumb, just tell me what I got wrong. Tell me how World Trade Center 7 collapsed. Tell me how 110 stories are supposed to have pancaked into each other in less than ten seconds. Next time you see a ten story building, imagine it fall in ONE second. Apparently you were born with ignorance, something that can be cured. I didn't even mention the fact that Steven E. Jones, a physics professor, tested the steel and found thermate in it so there's nothing to debate, except how to take the country we love back from people who are using it to put their nazi tactics to set up a police state. Maybe you'll understand when the U.S. attacks itself again to go to Iran, which it could do any day now... although I think they are pretty sketched out with all the 9/11 Truth news recently. There are so many problems with the official story I could write a book about it. nickspinner@gmail.com

Where the heck have I been? I honestly didn't think ANYONE could be idiotic enough to speculate that our own government did this to the WTC?!? And Flight 93? I guess all the cell phone calls to family and friends were also staged? And yet, you are the same people who say Bush is an idiot, yet he managed to plan this entire thing from NYC to the Pentagon to a field in Pennsylvania. Gee, if he's that good, maybe you should change the rules so he can be our Supreme Leader until the end of time.

Holy CRAP? Do you people also believe that the Holocaust was a hoax? I'm in shock.

1. Cell phones dont work in airplanes at the height that plane was at (although the plane companies have put devices in that make 'em get a signal, kind of a silly thing to do if they worked so perfectly on 9/11)
2. bush is inbred, not involved, possibly aware. his dad is way deeper than he is.
3. no i dont believe the Holocaust was a hoax.

Candy, these folks have posted here before with the same link and the same "arguments" better described as paranoid ideation. Nothing to be shocked by at this point, just dismayed that due to our faltering mental health system, they do not receive the care they so desperately need.

Hey Luke, argue with me! I'm a 15 year old from the Bay Area.

A 15 year old from the Bay Area, educated in public schools, no doubt.

Pity. If it were stupidity, education would've helped a bit. Not public education of course, but like I stated above, "Dumb is forever". Learn to live with it.

Bet you think Tricky Dick Nixon staged the moon landing too, right? See what I mean. I knew the answer already.

Nick - perhaps this will help you. Read this entire article from Popular Mechanics, which does a fine job of debunking conspiracies surrounding myths of 9/11, including your "controlled demolition" myth.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

This week were back to chimpy being the super mastermind evil villan, who masterminded the whole 9/11 conspiracy. Except he had his minions place the explosives in a way which would have the buildings fall in a perfect controlled explosive manner, (image of Homer Simpson slapping his head "doh"), thus blowing the whole conspiracy out of the water.

(Long, vaguely germane, copyrighted article deleted by editor; link left intact)

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060705/OPINION/207050320/1030/OPINION01

Nick, you are a fool. Stop listening to the voices in your head or I'll sic Karl Rove and the Evangelicals on you.

I'm an Evangelical! Sign me up!

"1: That Bush sent in a crack team of explosives experts, past WTC security, building maint. engineers, office workers and janitorial workers for months while wiring the buildings, without anyone ever questioning why or what they were doing there. Then depended upon no other maint subcontractor to discover the explosives while doing their work above ceiling."

Reply:

Jeb Bush was the head of security at the WTC...

"2: Flew remote controlled airliners into WTC without any airline ever missing a jet, employee, or customer. Then depended on the precision fall of both buildings upon detonation AFTER being hit by an airliner. (but decided to go with the missle option on the Pentagon.)"

Reply:

Nope...only a small group believe this...

"3: There is no Al Qaeda (cough)"

Reply:

Al-Qaeda is an intelligence asset...in other words, a branch of the CIA.

The CIA created Al-Qaeda...well documented.

"4: Flight 93 was blown up. (Don't ask why you would blow up your own remote controlled airliner)"

Reply:

Seismic records show the plane to have crashed at 10:06am...the black-box recorder only covers up to 10:03...

There is 3 minutes of audio missing...

"5: Everyone involved has kept their mouth shut about the entire operation since day one. Not ONE leak. Not even a whisper. (but yet we can't plant some WMD's to cover our ass when we need to)"

Terrorist units across the world carry out hundreds, if not thousands of operations, in which not a whisper is heard before nor after.

You watch to much TV...

Go to this site:

http://www.gieis.uni.cc/

Watch ex-government officials pull apart the lies of 9/11 and the Iraq war...

That article was fantastic, thanks Mark.

I almost gave up reading this thread, with all the screeching primates posting in here. If you don't have facts, try personal attacks.

I've never seen so many horribly pathetic cries for attention on one thread. Wow.

As for the "Professor"'s comment - The 9/11 lie was designed to sow hatred between the faiths.

Ummhmm, because revisionist and maybe even UofW-M history shows that the various religions have been so friendly towards on another up until then, I guess.

Seriously, Mark and Nick: you need to seek immediate psychiatric help for your delusions. Take Professor Barrett with you, too.

Tell you what Peter F...

See if you can find direct physical evidence that demonstrates that the WTC collapsed due to the impacts and fires...

Come back and post it here...

Good luck...because it doesn't exist...the NIST report is based upon an assumption...

Its a fairytale.

Nobody has emailed me, im waiting for someone to disagree with me and actually try and disprove what im saying. Oh, by the way, the Popular Mechanics debunking article has been debunked... numerous times. Peter F., what delusions? All i'm saying is that there were clearly explosives in the towers, because if you 1. see exposions 2. witnesses saw heard and felt secondary explosions 3.physics professor finds the thermate in the steel, which is the combination of thermite and sulfur, perfect for slicing through thick steel. 4. the towers fell about the speed objects fall through the air so the official story of one floor hitting the next and so on is impossible.
by the way mark, it was neil bush, not jeb. nickspinner@gmail.com

1) Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida on 9/11. He was in no way, shape, or form "head of security at WTC."

2) Marvin Bush, the current president's youngest brother, had been a director of Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC. He left that company in 2000.

3) If it wasn't airliners that hit the three buildings, where the fuck did they go? Where are the passengers (several of whom used cell phones to describe their last few minutes)?

4) If it were airliners that crashed into the buildings, isn't it fortunate that the planted explosives started at the floors hit by the planes, and THEN progressed downwards? Did the ones planted above the point of impact fail, not go off, or were the conspirators so confident of their plan that they didn't plant any explosives on the topmost floors above the impact points?

5) We can't keep a goddamned thing secret. Are you actually expecting a conspiracy of THIS magnitude to remain covered up, with all those people who MUST have been in the know (easily in the hundreds) all keeping the biggest secret to themselves? The first one to come forward with actual evidence would be set for life just on book and movie deals.

6) This is beyond insane. I've never seen anyone take Occam's Razor and use it to slash their own throats before.

J.

BigMo,

Thanks for the link.

For controlled demolitions to have been a factor, there would have had to have been four weeks of physical work, including almost a full week of round-the-clock work done removing wall facades, drilling, and cutting in all major support structures.

So, nick, mark, and the rest of you lunatics out there, when you can explain why NOT ONE SURVIVOR has mentioned anything like that happening on Septemeber 10th or previous, you will remain in the land of FlatEarth-Faked Moon Landings.

I would like to point out a fact to anyone still reading this thread. The pancaking WTC towers can be modeled as a piston that, lacking an intact cylinder wall, expel compressed air with great force from each pancaking floor segment that would entrain dust, dirt, smoke, and even macroscopic items like furniture and bodies. That effect is easily mistaken for explosions.

As for the rest of it, I wonder if anyone has asserted that the guy on the grassy knoll was involved.

Ahem. that should be "until you explain. . ."

Guess the moonbats (ever wonder why we call 'em that) are asking us the age old question, "Who you gonna believe, us or your lying eyes"?

These people are to be pitied. Dumb as rocks, dumb, dumb, dumb.

"1) Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida on 9/11. He was in no way, shape, or form "head of security at WTC."

Sorry about that, I was thinking about him declaring marshal law in Florida on September 7th 2001...

http://proliberty.com/observer/20011008.htm

"2) Marvin Bush, the current president's youngest brother, had been a director of Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC. He left that company in 2000."

So, he had connections to the security company and thus access pre-2000.

"3) If it wasn't airliners that hit the three buildings, where the fuck did they go? Where are the passengers (several of whom used cell phones to describe their last few minutes)?"

That's too speculative...

"4) If it were airliners that crashed into the buildings, isn't it fortunate that the planted explosives started at the floors hit by the planes, and THEN progressed downwards? Did the ones planted above the point of impact fail, not go off, or were the conspirators so confident of their plan that they didn't plant any explosives on the topmost floors above the impact points?"

That's not difficult to achieve with a little fore-thought, also if you check out the video of the collapse on my site, you will observe the collapse began with the core giving way BELOW the impact zone...its this that causes the building to pull the exterior columns towards the building which results in the implosion event.

"5) We can't keep a goddamned thing secret. Are you actually expecting a conspiracy of THIS magnitude to remain covered up, with all those people who MUST have been in the know (easily in the hundreds) all keeping the biggest secret to themselves? The first one to come forward with actual evidence would be set for life just on book and movie deals."

I live in Northern Ireland...I've watched terrorist organisations keep secrets to the grave...

How many people were involved in developing the nuclear bomb?

Was that a secret conspiracy in which the US people had no knowledge?

It can be done.

"6) This is beyond insane. I've never seen anyone take Occam's Razor and use it to slash their own throats before. "

Its clear you have not reviewed any of the evidence, nor do you grasp that NIST has no physical evidence to support their claims.

Its entirely fabricated. You, obviously, only know what you have seen on TV...

Read the evidence:

http://www.gieis.uni.cc

5) We can't keep a goddamned thing secret.

Exactly Jay Tea, I suppose that the NYT must be involved too.

Mark, out of curiousity, what kinds of medication were you prescribed, and when did you stop taking it?

Remember, they also laughed at Bozo the clown, and he was more real than either your nutjob theory or the equally nutjob site promoting it.

This is beyond insane.

Indeed. And it answers the age-old question of: Do crazy people know they're crazy?

Clearly the answer is a resounding "no".

Show everyone the evidence John Irving...

Please show us all the physical evidence proving the WTC collapse from the fires after the impact...

If you can't, your obviously some form of nut who likes to repeat fairytales because they him feel good.

Nick:

Nobody has emailed me, im waiting for someone to disagree with me and actually try and disprove what im saying.

My friend, the onus is on you to prove to us what you're saying, not vice versa. You're the one championing alternate realities, so I think it's high time we were offered IRREFUTABLE evidence, which we have not been.

Oh, by the way, the Popular Mechanics debunking article has been debunked... numerous times.

So a debunking has been debunked? That's not how things work. No alternate theories were presented here, just measured scientific and logical research. I would like to see this "debunking", however, feel free to post it. Since it apparently happened numerous times, it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with.

Peter F., what delusions? All i'm saying is that there were clearly explosives in the towers, because if you 1. see exposions 2. witnesses saw heard and felt secondary explosions 3.physics professor finds the thermate in the steel, which is the combination of thermite and sulfur, perfect for slicing through thick steel. 4. the towers fell about the speed objects fall through the air so the official story of one floor hitting the next and so on is impossible.

1. So you're telling me there were clearly explosives in the towers because you saw them? Do they teach you science and physics in highschool? Crack open a book.

2. I'm an eyewitness. I was there. I did not see or hear secondary explosions.

3. A physics professor found thermite in the steel? I'm impressed that he got to examine a piece of the steel. Who else had that opportunity.?

4. This is an assinine statement. Build a card house and then yank out a supporting card near the center. See what happens.

All you've offered is conjecture at best.

Looks like this guy has done his research on Democratic Underground when it comes to validating the WTC collapse.

A list of 115 omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds---testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks---Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

http://question911.livejournal.com/16174.html

Mark, my evidence is that what you suggest, and what your website implies, is a physical impossibility. There is direct physical evidence for a jetliner crashing into each of the towers. To predict an impact point with a jetliner's maneuverability sufficient to prevent it from either disabling or instantly detonating premade charges that could only have been installed by ghosts is as impossible as a blind man performing open heart surgery successfully in five minutes during a hurricane.

Mark:

Please show us all the physical evidence proving the WTC collapse from the fires after the impact...

Please show us physical evidence that you graduated from highschool.

If you cannot, then I'll just have have to say you didn't. If you post a scan of your diploma, I'll call it a forgery. If you cite sources, I'll cite sources that say otherwise. See how easy this game is?

"Mark, my evidence is that what you suggest, and what your website implies, is a physical impossibility."

Only in America... :)

This is a lot easier than you think...a lot easier.

Also, a plane impact will not detonate the explosives. C4 and semtex will simply burn in any fire like any other plastic explosive.

Watch the videos on this page and watch the molten steel/copper pour from the side of the building...

Part 2: 11th September 2001 & Molten Copper or Molten Steel
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/part2/index.html

This is not possible according to NIST's physical evidence.

Screw that, Heralder.

Mark, post proof that you even EXIST, and are not some loser's piss-poor attempt at a paranoid AI program.

Our trained staff of debunkers await your evidence...

J.

What's that???

You can't show me any physical evidence???

Bet you feel stupid now... :)

One of these nutjob hippies was pulling a 9/11 conpiracy sign in the Webster Groves, Mo., 4th of July parade, and one of his comrades was handing out "dollars" with Chimpy McBushalliburtonGitmoKatrinAbuGrab's photo on it.

I told him, "No thanks, we're all tapped out on crazy here."

He looked at me like "huh?"

Sorry, Nick, but that Popular Mechanics article has NOT been dubunked, because it IS the debunker.

My daughter dropped out of the University of Maine in Orono because she simply couldn't handle the insane leftist tactics used by the professors. Her dream was to become the next Fox News correspondent.

Candy, im actually a republican, and i understand your point about many universities having too many left-wing professors, but you jsut said her dream was to become a Fox News correspondent? its ok for even republicans to admit that Fox News is shameless rightwing proaganda that slants even its suppossed "news" to the right.why would she want to work for such a shamelss outfit?

Sorry, Nick, but that Popular Mechanics article has NOT been dubunked, because it IS the debunker.

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 01:15 PM

did you know that Ben Chertoff, cousin of homeland security chief Micheal Chertoff became editor of P.M. right before the "debunker" issue came out? funny how that works out and you fall for it.

"Sorry, Nick, but that Popular Mechanics article has NOT been dubunked, because it IS the debunker."

How gullible are you?

The popular mechanics article is based upon ASSUMPTION...it contains no hard evidence, just guys waffling...

Where's the evidence??????????????????

as opposed to a shamelessly left outfit like CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times, NPR, CNN, etc.

Mark - "gullible?" OK, nutball - so everyone listed on this page is, I guess, in your book lying:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

Have fun in the fever swamp, dude.

Also, a plane impact will not detonate the explosives. C4 and semtex will simply burn in any fire like any other plastic explosive.

Very true, because a plane impact would not possibly jar and tear wires loose.

Mark, hate to break this to you, but you and your wbesite are delusional. The only one ignoring evidence is you, while constructing your fantasyland decorated with tinfoil.

Since you are immune to logic, reason, and constructive criticism, I merely point out once more that you're insane.

Bye now.

Mark:

The popular mechanics article is based upon ASSUMPTION...it contains no hard evidence, just guys waffling...

Assumption?

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

If that's assumption, than your "proof" is less than an uneducated guess.

Still waiting on that physical evidence that proves the WTC was brought down by fire after the impact...

What's that, you can't find any physical evidence?

Perhaps that's because the criminals shipped it out of the country BEFORE the investigation...

...and had it melted down in China...

All under armed guard too...

Those who believe whole cloth the official story are being duped.

A terrorist plot was certainly in the works well before 9/11 took place. Of that there is little doubt. 12 different international intel agencies, from Egypt, Israel, the UK, Russia etc., ALL warned beforehand of either the type or time of the attack.

Not to mention the warnings coming from both FBI and CIA ops (just Google "Randy Glass WTC" or "Sibel Edmunds" to start the ball rolling). Read about the Phoenix memo and other domestic investigations which were quashed by FBIHQ's Radical Fundamentalist Unit (and Dave Frasca in particular) in the months prior to 9/11.

Even the scheduling of conflicting war games on the morning of 9/11 points to collusion.

Simulating multiple instances of the very same type of hijack/attack scenario (up to 22+ planes), using both live fly and electronic inserts, while also having the majority of fighters from NEADS off on the other side of the continent (Alaska and Northern Canada) to practice a simulated attack by Russia, well that just smells as well.

And the presidential directive warning intel agents to stop following the money trail of Islamic radicals - I wonder why. Look into the intersect of the CIA - drug & arms dealers - international terrorism. To deny this link is to deny history.

Mohamed Atta was funded by the former head of Pakistan's ISI, Mahmoud Ahmed. The FBI had confirmed this by Oct 2001. Yet he's not even wanted for questioning. The same Ahmed was breaking fast with Porter Goss and Bob Graham in Washington on the morning of 9/11.

Dick Cheney was placed in charge of ALL domestic counterterrorism initiatives as of early May 2001. He would have been notified of all warnings coming in for 4 months leading up to 9/11. He would have known about (and probably overseen) the multiple, conflicting war games.

I wonder what he meant when the aide counted down the distance of the plane approaching the Pentagon.

The plane is 50 miles out
The plane is 40 miles out
The plane is 30 miles out
The plane is 20 miles out
The plane is 10 miles out. Does the order still stand?

Cheney yells. Of course it still stands, have you heard any different?

Luckily, Cheney never had to testify under oath, instead having a friendly 'chat' with the (c)Ommission.

Anyone who thinks this is a left-right or Dem-Repub issue is just plain wrong. Replace Cheney with Clinton, and tell me what your view would be.

I'd say peace, but the powers that be obviously are doing all they can to prevent that.

as opposed to a shamelessly left outfit like CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times, NPR, CNN, etc.

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 01:22 PM
so you go by the old Rush Limbaugh myth that the MSM is "liberal"? maybe some of the journalists, in their home lives are, but corporate=republican. the MSM is as corporate as corporate gets. G.E. makes money off of war and they own NBC. give me a break you gullible bastard.are all righties this simplisitc? you jsut go with the "liberal media" myth because Rush tells ya to?

Nick, you are an idiot, shut up. I watched the whole thing on TV. The planes hitting the buildings. Then I watched the explaination on the History Channel. The steel does not have to melt, just lose its strength. If you do not think jet fuel burns that hot, go stand behind a jet engine on full afterburn. Looks like a torch to me. Like I said, Nick, you are an idiot.

Nick, you are an idiot, shut up. I watched the whole thing on TV. The planes hitting the buildings. Then I watched the explaination on the History Channel. The steel does not have to melt, just lose its strength. If you do not think jet fuel burns that hot, go stand behind a jet engine on full afterburn. Looks like a torch to me. Like I said, Nick, you are an idiot.

The WTC was a fairly uniquely designed building to address the problems in building structures that high.

The indecent Mark keeps chanting "fire" as if any one claims that a few lit cigarettes in wastepaper baskets brought down the WTC.

The steel didn't melt in a fire fueled by hundreds of gallons of jet fuel, but it did soften. Indeed, I recall a program going back to the original architect plans (PBS? Discovery?) and that the fire retardent on the steel beams was sprayed on and that the unprecendented force of commericial liners of a size and speed unknown when the WTC was built, blew the insulation off leaving the steel even more at risk of losing strength.

As pointed out here

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.
[...]
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence. I don't/won't argue with indecent moral cretins like Mark anymore than I argue with Holocaust deniers. I offer up actual analysis based on fact and forensics hoping juveniles with heads of mush, like Nick, might stop embarrassing themselves.

It has been brought to our attention that certain statements have been made on this thread regarding the dumb and stupid.

After a thorough review, we have concluded that two individuals "Mark and Nick" have indeed been termed "dumb" and "stupid" by some with credentials insufficient to support such a determination.

In point of fact, asylums will not accept patients merely on the affliction of being dumb or stupid. As the statements by the two above named individuals make clear, the widespread fear that computers have reached the most restricted areas in the most restricted asylums has now been realized.

We therefore protest the association of these two individuals with the terms "dumb" and "stupid". Heretofore we strongly recommend use of the terms "lunatic" or "deranged" to describe such circumstances. We thank you in advance.

Yours truly,

The Society for the Protection of the Dumb and Stupid

but corporate=republican

Corporations are amoral and their first order of business is to make money.

but WTF, why should even a peer-reviewed research by UCLA put a dent in the Order of Lunar Chiroptera dogma?

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

"." - I WAS a journalist and have the sheepskin and career to prove it. YES, the mainstream media is liberal, and it has nothing to do with anything Rush Limbaugh says about it.

It cracks me up that dopes like you claim that Fox is "right wing" but when someone points out that the networks and etc. are left wing, you get all bent out of shape, start claiming brainwashing by Rush Limbaugh, and other such stupidity.

Oh question for indecent Mark

I know a UA pilot that regularly flew Flight 93 on rotation, thus lost close friends and co-workers that day.

Is he part of the Vast Conspiracy? (seeing how all those people were never on the remote plane anyway?)

Darleen:

If someone doesn't want to believe something then they'll clutch at ANY little shred that backs up what they really want to believe. And it doesn't matter whether that shred is accurate or not, it is sufficient to simply have it exist so they can point to it and go "See? SEE!? YOU'RE ALL DELUSIONAL AND ONLY I AND A SELECT FEW REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON!"

It's like the folks who still persist in believing the earth is flat, or hollow with a flying saucer base inside. You wouldn't BELIEVE the convoluted reasoning explaining how satellite orbits work...

J.

I'll take the first ten. The rest just get increasingly Looney Tunes.

1) I saw an obituary for a John Smith in the paper yesterday, but I saw a John Smith today. Thus, the paper must be a lie.

2) The John Smith I know goes to church each Sunday and promises to honor the Ten Commandments, but I know he breaks them sometimes.

3) The Pentagon is the world's largest office building. The building itself is on 29 acres, it's over 77 feet tall, and each wall is 921 feet long. If one aims at it, it is so wide that it'd be really tough to miss. As it was, the terrorist pilot bounced into it.

4) The last time John Smith took his mistress to a hotel, he signed in as Jone Jones.

5) To the best of my knowledge, before and after 9/11, no planes carrying something in excess of 10,000 gallons of fuel have crashed at high speed into skyscrapers using structural steel instead of reinforced concrete for most of their vertical structural strength. (The words "steel frame" are distractors. One needs skyscrapers with a great many floors above the strike to be a similar model.)

6) Same as #5.

7) The earlier collapse of the later struck tower is an obvious result of the height of the strike. That is, the second WTC tower to be struck was hit considerably lower than the first one. In fact, it essentially confirms the cause of collapse. Once the remaining intact structural steel columns providing vertical support lose some percentage of stiffness, they can no longer bear load. Thus, they shift load onto the remaining intact columns. The heavier the vertical load, to quicker the collapse. Buildings rigged for demolition would not care time-wise the height of the strike, However, if the collapse mechanism was vertical load exceeding load bearing capacity, the lower the strike the quicker the collapse, just as happened on 9/11.

8) This is just a distractor. WTC was in the strike zone for debris from the WTC. Enough debris damage, and the building collapses as remaining steel works beyond yield, cracks in concrete propagate, and the limits get exceeded.

9) I looked in the phone book of another city and found ten John Smiths there! Imagine, given enough people, there always seem to be 10 or more John Smiths!

10) I wonder what those steel columns were doing in that building design? You think they just might possibly have had floors jointed into them by things like connecting steel attachments? This assertion is just silly, as it seems to claim that there were free-standing metal poles lurking hidden inside the building!

My mom buys into this whole bit. It's pointless to argue with her. If you make a counterpoint, like tell her about the Popular Mechanics article, she dodges and says that the author was somebody's cousin. Arguing with these people is like punching water. Another common tactic is that when some major point of the conspiracy theorists is debunked they all disclaim it and say, "Oh, Alex Jones said that but I never said that. You can't discredit us all by lumping us all into one theory!"

I know for a "fact" the WTC towers were designed to collapse just as they did when impacted by jets loaded with fuel. This terrorist attack has been planned since the late 50's and the designer of WTC was heavily involved.

I read it at DU and if you can't believe those folks, it was backed up on KOS. Jeez! Why don't you folks believe me?

sarcasm off/

Let's start with the basic assumption that 'fire cannot melt steel"

Wrong.

How do you think steel is made? It is an amalgam of metals melted together.

Galvanized steel contains sulfur - by definition.

Explosives would be indicated by the presence of nitrogen - not sulfur.

The temperature of smelting fires are achieved with different fuels. Ever notice welders use acetylene torches?

Jet fuel burns at very high temperatures, and would turn steel beams into rubber bands.

The engineers who designed the attack on 9/11 for Al Qaeda knew what mass above was required to buckle the steel, that is why they hit where they did instead of higher floors. Using Newton's third law of physics Force=Mass X Acceleration, the momentum of the higher floors forced the collapse of the building.

They tried to reduce the building to rubble in 1994 with trucks slamming into the bottom floors. The physics wasn't right and they failed. The perpetrators of this attack are still in jail.

(Explain the first attempt, conspiracists??? under the Clinton Adm)

The chemistry and physics of this attack were clearly planned by the engineer who attended NC State. Just because some looney tunes Madison prof has a political agenda does not mean he can redefine science.

That's the same problem Gore is having with global warming.

Candy -I'm sorry to hear what your daughter went through. My oldest got through Penn State by not discussing her views. But think about it - telling teenagers something is a surefire way to get them to question it - oppressive authority forces youth to go the other way.

"And then theres the hundreds of eyewitnesses saying they saw, heard, or felt explosions."

Dude, and please pardon the language, there were two fucking jumbo jets that crashed into the buildings. You think that might explain some of the sounds of explosions?

I feel like I'm watching a bad episode of the Hannity & Colmes "news" show. Infantile ambush attacks. Spend the time and do your own research on 9/11 and then come back and see if you are still willing to call Nick & Mark wackos. Just spend 1 or 2 hours of your life (go ahead, turn off Fox News for just a couple hours...you can do it, I know you can)

Either that, or go stick your head back in the sand.

Oh and BTW - any tall building is vulnerable to the laws of physics.

Professor Barrett is an insult to the memory of those we lost as a nation.

He and Ward Churchill should start their own school.

Fools University - you know - F.U.

Sean - I am a chemist - I have formulated my own views.

And considering the depth of your own depravity following blindly in spite of the physical evidence - I suggest you take your own suggestion

only in your case, open a science book.

Sean - come on - you serious?

Spend the time and do your own research on 9/11 and then come back and see if you are still willing to call Nick & Mark wackos.

These are people so stupid they need to be spoon fed pre-digested pre-spun news from the ridiculous right. Asking them to think and do research is out of the question.

(irrelevant material deleted by Section Editor)

Well Lee,
Which part of the science in my post do you dispute?

(Copyrighted material deleted by Section Editor)

Zeldorf said: "Nick, you are an idiot, shut up. I watched the whole thing on TV."

LOL - No fair - I was drinking milk, now it is all over my keyboard.

3) The Pentagon is the world's largest office building. The building itself is on 29 acres, it's over 77 feet tall, and each wall is 921 feet long. If one aims at it, it is so wide that it'd be really tough to miss. As it was, the terrorist pilot bounced into it.

is that why the lawn is completely unscathed? wow. nice logic.

Whatever, "."

I don't watch Fox news. Don't watch any TV news, in fact.

Wanna try again?

(Copyrighted material deleted by Section Editor)

(Copyrighted material deleted by Section Editor)

I see, the science, which is your fundamental disclaimer (fire can't melt steel??? stupidity) has been disputed, so you ignore it.

Oh - my - that does give you superior intelligence doesn't it?

No fair - I was drinking milk, now it is all over my keyboard.
Posted by: Lee

I would have thought the teet would have gotten in the way...

Sean -

I'm a registered professional engineer and have done my own review of the 9/11 events, as well as the available analyses and evidence, and am quite willing to call Nick and Mark "wackos".

Kathy -

The cause of the WTC collapse did not have to be from melt of the steel and did not even have to be from much softening. The WTC design depended on the steel for vertical structural stiffness as well as load-bearing, which is quite different from steel-reinforced concrete designs. BTW, I have my own personal doubts that the Al Q terrorists had any real engineering design input into their tactics. I think they just aimed for the approximate middle of the buildings' height from where they loomed above the nearby buildings in the way. As it was, the tape suggests that one had to bank to avoid missing, and ended up going in off horizontal.

I am a lifelong, right wing, combat vet who voted for Bush and I am quite convinced that our "government" (read; a small cabal of very twisted and evil people, not every single employee of the government) is responsible for the premeditated attacks of 911.

Believe me, I did not want to come to that conclusion, but after almost four years of studying this topic on an almost daily basis I don't hold out even the slightest possibility of any other conclusion.

I still don't agree with leftist nutjobs and their social engineering and I think one of the last places on Earth anyone will find a truly open and honest discussion about empirical facts is a US college campus, but if they have come to this conclusion as I have, then I hold out some degree of hope for our nation's young people.

"The engineers who designed the attack on 9/11 for Al Qaeda knew what mass above was required to buckle the steel, that is why they hit where they did instead of higher floors."

Which engineers are those, Kathy? This is the first I've heard that there were engineers involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack.

Hey "." try just posting the links.

popol vuh - and how did you arrive at your conclusions?

It cracks me up that dopes like you claim that Fox is "right wing" but when someone points out that the networks and etc. are left wing, you get all bent out of shape, start claiming brainwashing by Rush Limbaugh, and other such stupidity.

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 02:22 PM
they all DONT report on the same things. just because you fall for the phony left/right paradigm isnt my fault. gullible bastard.

Wierd thing is, for some reason I believe that Popular Mechanics wouldn't bugger their own credibility on anything science-related, no matter who owned it or supposedly ran it.

I also have a real hard time believing in a conspiracy that would require literally hundreds of people to implement without leaving any trace. If you've seen any video on the Discovery channel regarding building implosions, you'll come away realizing that a hell of a lot of work has to be done in preparation, and there's no way it could have been done in secret. I find it much easier to use Occam's razor on this, and find that the simplest explanation (IE Al Quaeda hijacking the jet liners) and slamming them into the buildings, which (when the structural steel softened from the fires) then collapsed.

As far as the jets not being shot down - first, consider the protocol for dealing with hijackers on 9/10. Give them what they want, and they'll leave the passengers alone - right? Why would we shoot down a hijacked jet? And why would we have fighters on alert to intercept hijacked planes INSIDE the US?

Finally, one last thing that doesn't pass the sniff test re conspiracies... if you're depending on the Presidential brief that said Al Q may try something - you'll note it's remarkable sparse on details. Try what? When? How? From where? All you're getting is a nebulous warning that Al Quaeda might be looking to try something in the US. Boy - that really narrows it down, doesn't it?

"." wrote:

"The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003."

Are you too dense to understand the difference between paid advertisements and editorial content?

" A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine."

Was that written by you or another one of your nutball friends?

Good grief.

Jim
Thank you for your comment, but I was addressing the fact that these cranial infarctions say steel couldn't melt. Do they think we just unearth the stuff - you know - naturally formed steel beams.... LOL?

In my career I've used various fuels in atomic absporption spectroscopy. Some metals do require high temperatures, so we burn nitrous oxide instead of the acetylene and hydrogen mix. But all metals burn.

Temperature would have an effect on the strength of the steel - as a PE you know this.

I do think there was engineering involved. They new they needed large, fully fueled jets. And they had to hit low enough to creat momentum. Had they struck the top floors, the entire structure may not have collapsed.

After seeing the limited intelligence of the conspiracists, I am left with one haunting question. Do they wear that tin foil for intercepting signals from the home planet, or does it help keep the voices quiet.

Ideas?

And the idea the a rightwinger could be crazy enough to believe this scam too - all I can say is that there's one in every family, but rarely do they make us proud.

Hey, "." - it really improves your credibility to call someone who disagrees with you or calls you out on something a "gullible bastard."

But since I know who my parents are and can prove beyond a doubt that they are my parents, I can only conclude that 1) you not only don't know how to use insults and 2) you're just a jerk hopelessly lost in the twisted world of tinfoil hats and conspiracy theories and 3) I've activated my secret Karl Rove communicator ring and he's sending the black helicopters over to your place right now.

Don't struggle. It only makes them angry.

Yes Lee, there's lots of things you haven't heard, that Al Qaeda has western educated members... including engineers... such as OBL himself.

The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003."

Are you too dense to understand the difference between paid advertisements and editorial content?

" A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine."

Was that written by you or another one of your nutball friends?

Good grief.

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 03:38 PM
nice to see you ignored most of the article.

Cheney gave the order to shoot down the planes, but mysteriously -- the orders weren't carried out.

When Flight 96 crashed Cheney thought it had been shot down under his orders, and he was devastated.

Big Mo, that was almost clever and funny.(but as usual very typical) wanna try again?

To the anonymous dot -

The path of the Pentagon plane, including near-ground behavior is well understood, as it left physical evidence of its passing.

Look here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

The severed light poles, the parts, the black boxes, the missing passengers ... you conspiracy lovers must really be desperate! These were observed events caught on video!

It also explains why the UFO types have been so quiet. The more digital cameras, the more camera phones, the more portable video movie cameras, the harder it is to fake or misinterpret stuff and call it a UFO. Or, here, a silly conspiracy or three!

The first thing I did was ask the simple question-

How on Earth are people who are responsible for such gross negligence and malfeasance of duty not summarily dismissed from their positions of public trust?

If the sole defense for the events of 911 were "hey, we're incompetent" the only option left to anyone with a shred of honor would have been to resign in abject shame.

But that didn't happen.

In fact, just the opposite occured. Every single screw up, every failure, every excuse maker involved in leaving America completely vulnerable to not 1, not 2, not 3, but FOUR separate attacks over a period of more than two hours was either promoted or awarded with even greater powers.

Then there was the matter of the destruction of the crime scene, the shipping of the wreckage of the WTC complex to India and China, the border left unchecked to an openly admitted 10 million illegal entrants in the following five years despite the fact that we were fighting "a war on terror", the Iraq war linked to the 911 attack based on falsehoods, the fact that OBL went from public enemy # 1 to George Bush saying 6 months later that we didn't know where he was, that he didn't care and that he wasn't a priority.

That was pretty much the start of my skepticism, more followed after that. Need I go on or do you catch my drift?

As far as the jets not being shot down - first, consider the protocol for dealing with hijackers on 9/10. Give them what they want, and they'll leave the passengers alone - right? Why would we shoot down a hijacked jet?
?

Posted by: JLawson at July 5, 2006 03:36 PM
oh, i dont know, maybe because Flight 77 hit the Pentagon after is was PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that hijacked jets were flying into buildings? time frame moron. check it.

JLawson going for the most simplistic explanation possible. i know its easier that way when the corporate media(which you clearly trust way too much,and dont understand) beats it into your head.

Whatever, "."

I don't watch Fox news. Don't watch any TV news, in fact.

Wanna try again?

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 03:27 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and yet your so sure that all TV news is liberal?(there you go falling for the phony left/right paradigm again.your too easy) who told you that? National Review? is that where you get your news sheep-boy?

popol vuh - well, obviously, over 61 million people disagreed with you in November 2004.

Wow Big Mo - what a bunch! I'm getting dumber reading their comments.

They don't know steel can be weakened by fire.
They didn't know AQ has US educated people in its ranks.
I'm still waiting for the 1994 attack explanation - what does the first attempt by the same organization have to do with the second during a different administration.

And nobody has answered my tinfoil question. It must be disrupting the signal.

"As far as the jets not being shot down - first, consider the protocol for dealing with hijackers on 9/10. Give them what they want, and they'll leave the passengers alone - right? Why would we shoot down a hijacked jet?"

A. We have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

B. It was believed that possible targets for the hijacked jets included the White House and Capitol Hill.

C. See "A" above.

Kathy - Still waiting to hear how you know engineers were involved in planning the 9/11 attacks -- ?

See, still ignoring the question, Lee?

Tinfoil to block the signal - or enhance?

And does tinfoil melt when struck be several tons of ignited hydrazine?

"." OK, punk, one more comment to you then I'm done. I don't watch TV news ANYMORE. I learned how liberal the media is through E-X-P-E-R-I-E-N-C-E in the field as a journalist, working with other journalists, and going through the J-school with people so liberal that they'd make Dan Rather look positively conservative.

That clear it up for you?

If not, then I can't help you and don't care to try anymore.

Lee You need to work on reading comprehension,
I explained the newtonian physics in my first post and in fact explained defining the point of impact as well.

lets see how many times i can use the term "tinfoil". you know, since im not that smart and dont have much of an argument. this kind of talk makes me nervous, so i just spew "tinfoil" as much as i can.im very typical you know.

Kathy - yeah, it is incredible. You can argue, fight, debate, reason, use facts (ones that come from this planet, not Mars), experts and witnesses, and you can never, ever pry a loony toons from a cherished fantasy.

Also, the failed attack in 1994, they sought the aid of engineer - or it was a well-calculated guess.

But with all the other planning involved, why dont you believe AQ has engineers? Do you think engineers are only in this country, like steel beams sort of 'come that way' because Lord knows, you can't shape them with heat. Sigh.

Dot and Lee -

Yeah, like they're gonna make a snap decision and tell all NORAD pilots (of whom there were very few remaining in the first place, since we were at peace and all with the USSR - probably all part of the conspiracy, you know?) to shoot down hijacked planes. Somehow, I don't think such a policy decision could be debated and implemented in less than a couple of hours. Sure, we had war plans in case of nuclear attack that could be implemented in moments - but hijackers slamming into buildings wasn't something that was expected pre 9/11.

BTW, Dot, you're losing it fast with the profanity. Perhaps it serves to convince your peers of how right you are, but it usually has the opposite effect with adults.

I am a lifelong, right wing, combat vet who voted for Bush

When one starts a post with his bonafides you can rest assured this would mean, "I am a lifelong moonbat, who served in the rear with the gear in the Army, and voted for Kerry dammit".

I cannot believe the Flat Earth Society still exists.

Kathy2 - since you have no comprehension of classical physics, just let the adults talk, ok? Since not one person has bothered to discuss the fact that the initial premise "steel won't melt" has been debunked, I'd say that intelligence isn't a safe subject for you. But thanks for the ad hominem. It's an inadequate dodge, however.

And I am genuinely curious about why you folks wear the tinfoil.... reception inhibitor or enhancer?

Big Mo,
Who knew they could be so sensitive about their hats?

Kathy:

Your debunking of the steel softening issue can be easily illustrated by anyone who's been to a blacksmith's shop - either real or a recreation somewhere, or at a RenFair or the like. They heat the steel in order to soften it for bending and forging. It doesn't have to melt in order to lose a lot of it's tensile strength, it simply needs to be heated to a point slightly above cherry red. When it's cold, it's strong. When it's hot, depending on how hot it is it can have the strength of taffy.

J.

when heated

Still waiting Kathy - people are starting to notice that you're avoiding the question.

The engineers who designed the attack on 9/11 for Al Qaeda knew what mass above was required to buckle the steel, that is why they hit where they did instead of higher floors. Using Newton's third law of physics Force=Mass X Acceleration, the momentum of the higher floors forced the collapse of the building.

How do you know engineers were involved in the attack, Kathy? or did you make that part up?

If so, what else did you make up?

ya know, if you look real hard at the footage of the first plane hitting, you can see Lee Harvey Oswald waving out the window.

Jim & Kathy,

Okay let's say for the sake of argument that the Official Conspiracy Theory about how the towers collapsed is correct (laughable, but let's just keep your tinfoil on your heads for a second): hydrocarbon fires weakened the steel, which led to a pancaking effect (one floor collapsing into the next into the next, and so on). There were no fires below about the 70th floor, so would it be safe to say that no steel was weakened below that point before the collapse? Surely you'd agree that no steel was weakened on the first 30 or floors. If one floor fell into another and so on, how long would it take for the roof to hit the ground. Answer: The towers fell in about 10 seconds, which is near freefall speed. How could the towers fall that fast? A bowling ball dropped off the roof through air would take 9.6 seconds to hit the ground, yet concrete and steel traveling through concrete and steel took a fraction of a second longer to hit the ground? With your backgrounds, you should easily be able to explain how this occurred.

Thanks for your help.

Face it, if you need to concoct an elaborate series of improbable events to explain why your "theory" is correct, against what the majority believes for sound scientific reasons, then you are in denial.

In the rose-colored world of conspiracy theorists, minority thinking means you are a chosen elite instead of a misguided fool.

Convenient.

Yeah, like they're gonna make a snap decision and tell all NORAD pilots (of whom there were very few remaining in the first place, since we were at peace and all with the USSR - probably all part of the conspiracy, you know?) to shoot down hijacked planes.

Cheney gave the order authorizing shooting down the planes. You'd have to ask him what his thought process was - if any.

Lee,
You continue your dishonest propaganda. Kathy explained to you the basic of Newtonian physics and you tried to divert attention by accusing her of lying. Standard tactic of yours.
I am still waiting for the answer from you: you have been caught in a lie and smear. What else you have been making up in your propaganda effort? Why are you willing to go to such an extent to deny the 9/11 attacks? Why such a propaganda effort on behalf of the terrorists?

Sean:

How could the towers fall that fast

If you consider the weight involved, the floors pancaked almost instantly. It makes perfect sense.

Kathy still hasn't explained how she knows engineers were involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks.

tick...tick...tick...tick

And once you realize that she made that part up - it's apparent that she's willing to lie to support her thesis.

Thunk!

That sound? Kathy's BS arguments hitting the bottom of the wastebasket....

Just for Lee, from the AP

(AP) ^

Posted on 06/07/2002 4:22:54 AM PDT by Dallas

WASHINGTON --

The man suspected of masterminding the Sept. 11 terror attacks was well-traveled: Born in Kuwait, he went to college in North Carolina, fought Soviets in Afghanistan, plotted attacks against Americans from the Philippines.

He also repeatedly visited the German city where chief hijacker Mohammed Atta lived, U.S. officials said Thursday.

Officials suspect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a top lieutenant of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, met with Atta or members of his cell in Hamburg, Germany, but they have not received direct evidence of any contacts between them, one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Since Sept. 11, evidence has mounted that Mohammed was chief among the bin Laden lieutenants organizing the attacks, counterterrorism officials said. Abu Zubaydah -- another of the alleged organizers and now in U.S. custody -- has identified Mohammed as the organizer, and investigators have learned he transferred money used in the attacks.

Investigators also have uncovered more of his history. They believe Mohammed attended Chowan College in northeastern North Carolina before transferring to another American university, where he obtained an engineering degree, a second U.S. official said Thursday, declining to provide further details.

Who's lying, Lee?

I'm beginning to get my tinfoil question answered empirically- the tinfoil cuts out the signal, quiets the little voices.... do you sleep in it?

LAI - nice to see you old friend - hope you are well.

KAthy,
Good to see your posts here. Looks like you have a good team also at Hangright.

Ok, ignoring the "is there a 911 conspiracy" argument, I'll just ask this about Prof. Barnett. Is anyone required to take his Religious Studies COURSE 370 - ISLAM: RELIGION AND CULTURE? And are the people who take his course required to believe everything he says? Have any of the people who think he should be fired gone to college? If you did, were you able to think for yourself? Could you choose your courses?

Kim says:

The university is providing Barrett cover by claiming he has academic freedom, which is another sham since, as Ann points out, the university gave him that freedom by making him an academic in the first place.

So academic freedom is a sham because universities grant degrees and employ professors? Umm, ok.

Funny I never see anyone around here upset that William Dembski and Michael Behe are "allowed" to espouse their nutty creationist views in the classroom.

Heralder,

If you consider the weight involved, the floors pancaked almost instantly. It makes perfect sense.

Thanks, that explains it.

Anyone want to try answer the question as to how the towers collapsed at freefall speed? Kathy? Jim?

Was the AP lying, Lee?

When you roll over, does the tinfoil poke you in the ear?

Do you shower in it, too? Nevermind, I know you don't shower.

Kathy, the first WTC attack happened in 1993, not 94. This is another topic that I dare not bring up now.

Sean,
They collapsed at a rate consistent with the force of gravity. 9.8 feet/second/second.

Don't they teach science in schools anymore?

Sean -

I've not seen any official estimate of fall time or any engineer-backed reasoning of it being at any unexpected rate. I know that glass slows a bullet, but the effect is rarely enough to measure unless one has the glass instrumented in a lab setting.

You're at a bowling alley. There is a long line of balls up in the return queue. You reach in between two balls when another slams into the front of the queue a few feet away. Why do you feel the impact immediately, instead of the time the stopped ball would have required to traverse the rack? How far did the bottom floors have to travel to reach the bottom?

I have not studied the specific data point you seem to find perplexing, even if it is accurate. Speaking only as an engineer with those disclaimers, i would not expect the fall to be much retarded. In fact, I would expect the brake effect to be minimal in terms of duration. Why would you expect it to be a significantly different time, in analysis terms, not opinion?

OK - Steve, thanks, here's what wikipedia had to say:
The World Trade Center bombing was the February 26, 1993 attack in the garage of the New York City World Trade Center. A car bomb was detonated by Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One. It killed six, injured over 1,000, and presaged the September 11, 2001 attacks on the same buildings.

The goal of the attack was to devastate the foundation of the north tower in such a way in that it would collapse onto its twin.

----\
The year doesn't invalidate the point. They tried once before, and how does that relate to their second attempt, or was that staged too.

Of course it also explains why they consulted an engineer, instead of say, GUESSING as to what strengths of mat'ls would be vulnerable.

Any of you Conspiracists out there can tell me where they mine those readymade steel beams, especially since they can't be melted.....

This thread is an excellent example of how a nice fat BLOOD FOR ODIN button might be useful. Appreciate the effort you've had to put into editing out some of this tripe, Kim.

However, since we are diverging into wacko conspiracy theories (or facts, depending upon your orientation), let me propose that Lee is not one, but a series of posters using the same name (and perhaps computer). Or one person suffering from multiple personality disorder. Careful unpublished analysis of grammar, spelling, attitude, posting times, tone, coherence and use of logical and illogical argument styles supports this contention, but no need to post a link. It is possible that at least one of these Lees was in on the detonation of the WTC and due to overwhelming guilt, has seen fit to crusade pseudonymously to uncover this great lie.

I salute your bravery.

You know the black helicopters will be coming soon for us both.

Its been fun while it lasted. Bye all.

You conveniently left several important points out Kathy - no wonder you didn't provide a link.

Investigators also have uncovered more of his history. They believe Mohammed attended Chowan College in northeastern North Carolina before transferring to another American university, where he obtained an engineering degree, a second U.S. official said Thursday, declining to provide further details.

(Kathy snipped the article here - but let's read on to see what she didn't want you to see)

A spokeswoman at Chowan said a Khaled Al-Shaikh Mohammad attended the school in the spring of 1984, when it was a two-year institution.

Mohammed, who is 37, according to Interpol, would have been of college age in the mid-1980s.

Chowan spokeswoman Melanie Edwards declined to provide further information about the student, including whether he transferred to another school in the state.

Chowan College, which became a four-year college in 1992, is in Murfreesboro, N.C., near the Virginia border and about 100 miles northeast of Raleigh.

Officials at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro and UNC-Charlotte said they had no records of a student by that name -- or any of the aliases listed for Mohammed on the FBI's Web site -- attending in the 1980s.

Hmmm, no record of him ever attending the NC college - isn't that convenient.

So where did Khaled Al-Shaikh Mohammad obtain his engineering degree Kathy? Or did his two years at junior college give him all the engineering he needed? LOL!

It's amazingly interesting how Lee demands answers to his questions, but does not feel the need to meet the same standard.

Lee, when you start responding to requests to support your POV with facts, maybe others will respond in kind. Until then, everyone should recognize you for the troll you are and ignore you.

Kathy,

Now you're getting somewhere. Freefall speed occurs in the absense of any resistance (i.e., there is nothing in the way to prevent it from accelerating due to gravity and it's own weight), yet I think there might have been a little bit of stuff in the way. Like maybe 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, 103 elevators, 60,000 tons of cooling equipment, and just a little bit of office equipment.

It is physically impossible for 110 floors of steel and concrete to collapse straight down in 10 seconds. Impossible.

Nice try, PNAC, Cheney, Bush, et al.

Lee, you miss the point - and you found the link so I will assume ANYONE could. It's a silly accusation that I'm hiding something from you in PLAIN SIGHT - but your 9.11 lying eyes have deceived you before...
Have you seen a counselor for your paranoid delusions?

Did you miss this part?
Chowan spokeswoman Melanie Edwards declined to provide further information about the student, including whether he transferred to another school in the state.

-----
Yes you did.
He had two years of engineering there buddy. What do you want a 4 yr degree? Is that what OBL asked YOU for? Didn't make it, eh?

However, since we are diverging into wacko conspiracy theories (or facts, depending upon your orientation), let me propose that Lee is not one, but a series of posters using the same name (and perhaps computer).

LOL - Talk about conspiracy theory wackos - that takes the cake.

Sorry to disappoint you Eppy - but America is up in arms over the republicans who will lie, cheat, and steal to further the "Hate Thy Brother" agenda of the ridiculous right. The other left-leaning posters you see here who are as outraged as I are not me - I only post under the name of Lee, and have never posted a single comment under another name on this site. Can you say the same Eppy?

Lee -

It takes little enough engineering to understand how and why the WTC buildings failed, which is why your and your fellows' continued conspiracy theory claims make you seem really like tinfoil hatted looneys.

Wrong, Sean.

Again, Lee is caught red-handed in his dishonest propaganda on behalf of the terrorists. Of course, Lee and his comrades on the radical left are projecting their lies, cheat, steal, and hate on Bush and the Republicans.

I don't see Lee that upset over the evil terrorists. He is quite willing to be "strong and assertive" against Reps and Bush. Yet he will go to the floor to propagandize for the terrorists, even to deny the 9/11 attacks. These are the same people who resolutely refuse to believe Saddam and AlQ link.

Two years of engineering? Are you an idiot? He had two years of prep work preparing for a transfer to a four-year college - and consequently had little or NO engineering.

AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE EVER WENT TO A 4 YEAR SCHOOL AND EVER WAS TRAINED IN ENGINEERING. (CAPITALIZED for the thinking-impaired right)

You know that Kathy - you're college educated, and you know that he would have had NO engineering at a junior college - You are indeed someeone who would lie to further the agenda of hate. What scum.

your and your fellows' continued conspiracy theory claims make you seem really like tinfoil hatted looney

Show where I posted my theory Jim. Or are you a liar too?

I merely asked Kathy a simple question, caught her lying, and am having a great time showing that she is willing to lie for what she believes in. What's the harm in that?

i had a hard time believing the administrations version of 9/11 but then I had half my brain scooped out with an ice cream scoop and it all started to make sense.

Its simple. There are good people and there are bad people. The bad people want to kill the good people because they are jealous of all that the real god has given to his worshippers. The good people love freedom but they give it up to fight the bad people. Some people give up all their freedom, learn to rape and kill, and join Kilo company. Although they do terrible things, they are not bad because Jesus was a marine.

Its so much easier to wave the flag than to have to learn about the constitution.

Lee,
Why are you so hateful towards Kathy? Simply because you are caught red-handed again? So you love the terrorists and try to propagandize for them. Why are you denying the 9/11 attack? Why are lying on behalf of such scums as the 9/11 terrorists?

It is physically impossible for 110 floors of steel and concrete to collapse straight down in 10 seconds. Impossible.

And what measure of physics are you going to use to disprove the "impossible" that actually happened?

Try to remember that they didn't fall straight down; there were many building damaged or collapsed next to and around the WTC.

In general, I wonder how these conspiracy theorists would like to address a 9/11 family member or two to see what they think of their little theories.

Wrong, Sean.

Gee Kathy, that was very insightful. Thank you for convincing me that I am wrong.

Maybe I should just stick my tongue out too. Nah nah nuh-nah nah!!! Is that how it's done, Kath?

*sigh*

Sad.

don't use the physics that apply to the planet earth.

just remember, there is no such thing as gravity, the earth just sucks.

i hate the earth. gotta go cruise around in my hummer for a little bit.

i also hate all the animals. glad i'm not an animal.

Sean,
Just show us the experiment to demonstrate the impossibility of your conjecture or theory.

So bozo,
you love the terrorists and don't believe that they will be willing to cut off your head?

Lee - I didn't lie - repeating that lie won't make your point. As Jim said little engineering was required. They weren't building a bridge there buddy, they were flying a plane into buildings. I had the physics to do that calculation in high school. BTW - I finished my chemistry degree in three years, and only required another semester for a BS in math.

There is no lie except the original one - what Love America Immigrant calls 'your lie for the terrorists'. The 'steel won't melt' lie.

It is your supposition Sean, that mass is the only factor?

Remember momentum? Mass x Velocity.

It's not all about MASS. The speed of the building collapse from the top ACCELERATED.

9.8feet/sec/SEC

That's why you are wrong.

Peter F,

And what measure of physics are you going to use to disprove the "impossible" that actually happened?

Of course the towers actually fell at freefall speed, but only due to controlled demolition explosives. I don't claim to be a physicist, but BYU Professor Stephen Jones is, and he has stated that it is not possible for 110 stories to "pancake" in 10 or 11 seconds.

Try to remember that they didn't fall straight down; there were many building damaged or collapsed next to and around the WTC.

Sure, there was collateral damage, but the buildings did collapse straight down. They did not tip over.

In general, I wonder how these conspiracy theorists would like to address a 9/11 family member or two to see what they think of their little theories.

I'd be happy to talk to any of them. They should be outraged even more than I am, and I would be happy to share with them the wealth of knowledge and research that has been done to show that the Official Conspiracy Theory doesn't hold water.

(BTW, Kathy, this is how a conversation goes. Instead of sticking your tongue out and telling people they wear tinfoil hats, you have a rational discussion.)

Sean - that ad hominem does not qualify for rational discussion - per your own rules. LOL

That hat must get prickly considering how quickly you loons toss out insults.

And Sean - it's obvious that you don't understand physics...

Ever wonder why all physics professors don't sign on to your theory?

If you think about it really hard, you could come up with a reason.

Here's a hint: YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG

Sean,
Kathy gave a pretty good explantion from physics. In the end, we need experiment to demonstrate your conjecture or theory. You have no evidence whatsoever about controlled demolition explosives. We had evidence of planes flying into the building. So it is your responsibility to demonstrate your hypothesis with real experiments.

Here's Wikipedia on Stephen Jones:

Steven Earl Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Although the term cold fusion was coined by Jones in the 1980s, his experimental work was significantly different from the more controversial cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann.

Currently, Jones is also investigating the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by pre-positioned cutter charges.

Jones has also given credit to the Mormon assertion that Jesus Christ spent some time in Latin America while he was alive.

ROTFLMAO

Is anyone here familiar with the Plan for a New American Century (PNAC)?

Is anyone aware that the founding members of this "think tank" included neocons Rummy, Cheney and Wolfowitz, among others?

Are you aware that the project's deliverable was a document (released September, 2000) titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This document talked about a strategy for transformation of the military, the need to engage in multiple simultaneous theater wars in South Eastern Asia and the need to increase military spending substantially to achieve these goals?

Are you aware that the top of page #51 of this document specifically called for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event, like a new Pearl Harbor" in order to make the public and congress accept these new wars and budgets required to fund them?

Is anyone aware that in July of 2001, a certain individual took out a huge insurance policy on the World Trade Center complex specifically covering acts of terrorism?

Did you know that this same leaseholder is on the public record referring to building #7 that "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, then they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse"?

Is anyone aware that on the morning of 9/11 military drills practicing the exact scenarios of the actual events were happening?

Is anyone aware that many of the alleged hijackers are reported to be still alive by the mainstream media?

Or does everyone know that ISI officer who sent the $100,000 to ringleader Atta was meeting with government officials in Washington on the morning of 9/11/01?

You all do know that Osama is an asset of the CIA right? Maybe this explains why any effort was ever made in capturing him and that the program responsible for his capture has just been scrapped.

Are you aware that none of the hijackers names appeared on any of the flight records?

Did you know that the identities of all 19 alleged hijackers were known within hours of the attacks? How is this possible?

Are you aware that the only reason there was any investigation into 9/11 is because family members tirelessly pushed for an investigation? This took about 440 days before the Administration agreed to put together the partisan Keane Commission.

Did you know that hundreds of hours of government whistleblower testimony was conveniently left out of the official report, including over 5 hours of testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmunds?

Are you all aware that the FBI has just recently acknowledged that they "have no hard evidence connecting Osama to 9/11"?

And of course you all must have noticed that just about every piece of significant foreign and domestic policy dictated by the government has used 9/11 for its justification or pretext?

Anyway, I can go on and on and on. There is mountains of information out there that conclusively suggests government complicity. I am 110% convinced that the "official story" is a lie. And believe me I made sure I was 110% convinced before I started shooting my mouth off to family and friends. Do you think anyone can be "nutty" enough to spread a conspiracy of this grand scale if they believed it was just a theory?

Sadly, it is all too obvious that the entire official story is in question. I wish it was true, but unfortunately it isn't.

I would bet if I asked Jones the tinfoil hat question, he could answer me.

Cold fusion. LOL.

Jesus in South America. LOL

and explosives in the WTC - well that's a moron trifecta if I've ever seen it!

Steve,
It was well known that we had all the intelligence about these hijackers but were prevented from acting because of the Gorellic wall erected by the Clinton administration.
I am surprised that anyone who lives in freedom in the US can believe the worst things about their gov. At the same time they resolutely refuse to believe the evil intention and action of the terrorist in front of their own eyes.
Is it because of ideology and a hunger for political power that blined these folks to reality?

"It is physically impossible for 110 floors of steel and concrete to collapse straight down in 10 seconds. Impossible."

Good grief. Anyone else see what's so stupid about that statement?

Steve,
You're first instincts that this is a nutty conspiracy theory were right.

Never change your first answer on a test, it's very often correct. In this case, you've wasted your time.

Really.

Big Mo, please feel free to enlighten us.

I suppose it also doesn't hurt to mention that a similar "false flag" operation was proposed during the Kennedy era as a pretext for invading Cuba. The program is referred to as Operation Northwoods and its details have recently been declassified.

I'd love to sit here trying to get through to you NeoCons all day, but sadly, it appears to be a waste of time. I tried posting some links to some relevant info, but it got held up for review. Anyhow, good luck to all of you with your beliefs. I respect your right to believe the Official Conspiracy Theory, but I'll stick with what I believe to be true, thank you.

I've been trying to figure it out myself. Looks like Jim, Kathy, and Sean could have an interesting discussion about the collapses.

I don't understand how the buildings fell. The NIST report gives me a vague sense that the collapse could conceivably have been "initiated" by the fires (given the obvious structural damage).

But even if the top of the building started pressing down on buckled collumns around the 70th and 90th floors ... like Sean, I don't see how the collapse would turn out the way it did. You've got a lot of very intact structural steel to break up down there.

Now, the NIST report specifically does not describe what happens in the 10-16 seconds after the collapse begins. It just says the weight coming down is "enormous" ... well, the structure was "imposing" until then, I'd say.

If Jim can give rough sense of what happened to the ca. 300 box collumns and all the spandrels and cross girders, and the much more reinforced service floors, etc., in those 16 seconds, that would begin to enlighten me.

I've looked at lots of the theorizing and debunking on both sides (including PM and Nova, etc.) It doesn't settle it for me.

Anyone who thinks that this comment can be used to make a reasonable judgment about its author's state of mind or intelligence is of course loopy.

Let's talk about Cold fusion, or Jesus in SA.

I wonder how y'all feel about the Easter Bunny. Do you think the chocolate ones can hop?

Why change the subject Kathy? Run out of lies?

Steve,
You just forgot to mention that the communists were willing to kill hundreds of millions of people and enslaving billions of people just to further the rule of their evil ideology. The communists meant war against America and the free world. They were more bloody than even that fascists. That was a fact. You should be thankful that America was willing to fight against the communists so that you can have the freedom today.

Lee,
Why change the subject, Lee? Run out of lies? We are still waiting for the answer to the question: why are you willing to believe the lie about 9/11 on behalf of the terrorists?

LoveAmerica,

Kind of similar to America's waged "war on terror" that "will not end in our lifetimes" isn't it?

Love America Immigrant,
I did try to see if anyone wanted to talk about other conspiracy theories of the esteem Prf. Jones of BYU. Wonder if he thinks Jesus invented Cold Fusion and ran off to South America with the solution?

It's just impossible not to laugh at them.

I know why Lee and his ilk want so badly to believe that America is evil. They are failures, and must have someone to blame. Individual responsibility is an anathema, much easier to blame Big Brother.

I can hear the black helocopters now....

The sad fact is that conspiracies are easier to believe when you don't take responsibility for yourself. You don't have to fix anything if you are helpless.

It's classic delusional denial.

Sad, and I really shouldn't poke fun.

Gotta run LAI - don't be a stranger, stop by HRP and comment, I know my partners would all love to see you. Take care.

Steve,
Don't understand you point. Communism was a real evil ideology: gulags, famine, genocide, red revolution. Its secular statist creed is the direct opposite of the American creed of inalienable rights given by the creator. Communism meant war against America, the free world, and the poor/oppressed. The jihadist terrorist ideology is a real evil today. It is waging war against America and the West and try to impose their radical Islamic rule on the world. So you don't believe in the evils of communism and the jihadist terrorists?

Sean:

I'd love to sit here trying to get through to you NeoCons all day, but sadly, it appears to be a waste of time.

You asked a question, it was answered according to the laws of science, and now you're having a hard time getting through? Think harder Sean, read those posts again, and entertain for perhaps one moment that it wasn't all a big conspiracy theory, that a marked minority believe your brand of outlandish events occured. Being the minority here doesn't mean you're the only one's in the know, it means you're the minority because you're favoring fantasy over reality.

I can hear the black helocopters now....

Something tells me you hear little voices too.

Sean,

Sure, there was collateral damage, but the buildings did collapse straight down. They did not tip over.

Yes, Sean, they did come straight down, and that may be the only miracle that occured that day. But that doesn't do squat to support your (cough, cough) professor's theory. Let's get into the real details of how braindead your theory is.

First, any controlled or planned explosion of such an immense structure you would have seen the demolition explosions on the lower and middle levels of the towers, and heard a series of detonations just to start to collapsing the buildings. This type of demolition would have required a crew of hundreds of men and women to conduct --who most certaintly would have been noticed moving in and out the buildings drilling hole after hole after hole into the buildings' structures and beams, ripping apart walls to place explosives and blasting caps, run wire all over the place to outside and secure area where the proverbial button would have been pushed. This is basic demolition practice. And none is said to have occured on orin the weeks before 9/11.

The structural failure (as someone pointed out very early in this thread) was due to the fairlure of the fire retardant on the steel beams which was blown off by the initial impacts of the planes and then exposed to the incredible heat of the jet fuel. With the retardant blown-off and exposed to the intense heat, the steel beams were compromised, buckled and could no longer hold the weight above the crash site. Once those key beams failed, it was all over; yes, the weight came straight down at first, but then the floors and everything else began to peel off when the rest of the structutre could not hold the weight. You can view it here here. And some more wacky professional building engineer expertise here

And yes, it can happen in 10 seconds (actually it was 16 seconds to total collapse).

I'd be happy to talk to any of them. They should be outraged even more than I am, and I would be happy to share with them the wealth of knowledge and research that has been done to show that the Official Conspiracy Theory doesn't hold water.

You'd better have good health insurance then because you won't be doing much talking afterward.

By all means, present your theories to the world. You keep making our point--that is, people who are sane--that people like you are to be ignored and pitied.

Something tells me you hear little voices too.

Why change the subject, Lee? Run out of lies? We are still waiting for the answer to the question: why are you willing to believe the lie about 9/11 on behalf of the terrorists?

Peter, Thanks for the research and the links.

In general, I wonder how these conspiracy theorists would like to address a 9/11 family member or two to see what they think of their little theories.

Posted by: Peter F. at July 5, 2006 04:59 PM

heres 1 9/11 family member(more to come):

Donna Marsh O'Connor at the U.N

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=7&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=31&epi=0&typ=0

Sean, sweetcheeks... see this 20 lb bag of sugar?

Please stand here and hold it over your head. Pretty easy, right? Your arms are easily handing a 20 lb load even over your head...

Now, edge just a little closer to the roof line where I'm standing above you... I'm going to drop a 200 lb anvil on top of your 20 lb sugar ...

How fast do you hit the ground?

"And yes," Peter says, "it can happen in 10 seconds (actually it was 16 seconds to total collapse)."

The 9/11 report does say about 10 seconds. I also think 16 seconds is closer. I think 10 seconds is very implausible (for the reasons people have been suggesting.)

I still don't know what is supposed to have happened in those 16 seconds (note that this can grant the official take on the fire-proofing and the intense heat.)

The top 20 floors come down on the bottom 90. (For surely you don't mean that the collumns buckled all the way down the side of the buildings.)

Then what happens? The frame shatters like porcelain?

You all got to understand the Lee troll ... it is contrarian on purpose, because that is the raison d'etre of its existence. No fact, no argument will make one bit of difference to it.

Just another indecent KossKiddieKultist.

Darleen,

I'm not an expert on this, but it seems to me that the analogy would fit if Sean were holding 100 of those bags one on top of the other (i.e., he was already that strong -- carrying 2000 lbs.) and then you dropped that 200 lb. anvil (or a stack of twenty bags) from the height of say 5 bags of sugar onto that tower of bags.

It's because I imagine it (more) like that that I can't get the official story to make any sense.

Tom,
We may not know exactly about all the details of how the towers collapse. We know that the "controlled demolition explosives" theory has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. This is a kooky conspiracy theory. Yet some people were willing to believe it. At the same time, they would resolutely refuse to believe that Saddam and Alq have any relationship. That is just amazing.

I see there are alot of people,who are quite sure about the official 911 story. People who believe the 911 commission report? or maybe think that people in the massive military/industrial complex/govt just couldnt bring something like 911 to its own country. Even a few so called experts and engineers.

and we are looking for answers
just a few Questions
So.answer us o'scientific ones ones.

how did the towers freefall as fast as gravity?

why was every computer, chair,and telephone along with the concrete floor, "including the carpet on top and the steel pan on the bottom" vaporised! into a pyroclastic dust cloud that covered the whole of lower manhattan in a layer of dust 3 inches thick?

why was there literally tons of molten iron and red hot steel beams in the basements of WTC 1,2,and7?

How come the secret service did not immediately throw a jacket over George Bush"s head and drag his butt away from my pet goat to the limo and drive to where Airforce One was parked,when they found out we were under attack?

yohnzeye,
Kathy and Peter had given you pretty good explanation already (peter even include the links).

At least we can all agree that the "controlled demolition explosives" is a farce that has no evidence to support it. Imagine what we would require to accomplish such a feat. If you can believe in such a fantasy, you shouldn't have any problem believing that the planes flying into the towers causing them to crash.

LoveAmerica,

Since you say that

"We may not know exactly about ALL the details of how the towers collapse."

you can't also say that

"We know that the "controlled demolition explosives" theory has NO evidence whatsoever to back it up."

There are some details of the WTC collapses that suggest controlled demolition. And there is no evidence to suggest that explosives were not used. (It was removed from the scene.)

(Though there are many sophisticated theories about how impossible it would have been to plant them, etc., etc., and how unlikely it is that Bush - or whoever - would have thought to do so such thing ... but they are pitched more or less at the level of pop conspiracy theories. I.e., people just thinking out loud based on a few factoids and their intuition.)

As to the "kooks" ... I'm not sure I want to get into that aspect of it.

Best,
T.

Tom

You first have to understand that the WTC was a radically new design to be able to be built that high and be functional. It was designed to withstand a hundred year storm (I remember being on the top floor during a bad winter and feeling the building sway. Didn't startle me, 'cause I'm a Californian and all our tall buildings are designed to do that to so they don't fail during earthquakes) and to take a hit from the commercial jet liners of the day.

Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure is clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. [...]

The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."

Perimeter columns, several storeys high, and still linked together, lie amongst all the debris on the ground.

That point of logic may have been a bit cryptic. I meant something like you can't reasonably say, "I haven't been outside today but I know that there is no evidence to suggest that it rained last night."

-sigh-

This grew too big for my comments to be even read probably...BUT

I graduated from the California Maritime Academy with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. A required course is called Engineering Ethics, and we had many discussions, often prompted from video shorts from case studies. This happened to be a case study. For the website check out this:

NOVA Online:Why the Towers Fell

why was every computer, chair,and telephone along with the concrete floor, "including the carpet on top and the steel pan on the bottom" vaporised!

Oh GEEZ another Lunar Chiroptera asswipe heard from.

LISTEN you fuckwit, I know people who worked at Ground Zero on the rescue/recovery details. They are going to have nightmares for years ... stuff got CHEWED and SHREDDED, as might happen when something so mundane as a desk or HUMAN BODY is ground up between concrete slabs weighing tons...but they weren't "vaporized". Telephone here, hand there, desk drawer here, piece of thigh there.

You all belong in a state facility for the criminally insane. And I'm being nice for saying so, because the alternative is that you all are sane but evil.

Tom:

Go to the sites I linked. And yes, the steel beams would buckle, snap and shatter like procelain due to the immense weight and the internia of mass coming down on top of them.

LAI:
No matter how much we explain how a controlled demolition actually works and the number of people involved to bring down a structure like the WTC, we are more or less wasting our breathe.

yohnzeye:
why was there literally tons of molten iron and red hot steel beams in the basements of WTC 1,2,and7?

1.) The fires from the jet fuel which ignited objects (and people) in the buildings and down the elevator shafts to the floors below. When the structures failed, the fires spread. And...
2.) The collapses themselves crushed automobiles (also filled with fuel) located in the basements of each building, which exploded and started fires that smoldered for months, many feet below the top of the rumble. With little oxygen, they smoldered for months.
3.) People and things (desks, computers, etc.) would have been vaporized due (again) to the sheer force and weight coming down on top of them...
4.) You've been given scientific answers for them; you're just too damn stubborn to accept the truth. That's the sad part.

Engineers in al-Qaeda?

Hmm, you mean like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?

What's that, he never got an engineering degree? Hmm, that's not what wikipedia, the Washington Post, or the LA Times discovered, when they were doing research on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed#Professional_career
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16232-2004Jul26.html
http://www.engology.com/eng5mohammed.htm

And that's after an exhaustive, two-minute Google search of "Khalid Mohammed engineering."

Kathy, a minor nit:

Acceleration by Earth's gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared, not feet.

Though I suspect dealing with these... fervent individuals led to some frustration that led to you missing that. Stay calm, get your facts in order and eviscerate their arguments. It won't do any good for them, but this isn't a private conversation.

...wow, this thread made me dig up some basic physics formulae to see if those spewing conspiracy theories had bothered to use any of them. Answer: unlikely.

In general, I wonder how these conspiracy theorists would like to address a 9/11 family member or two to see what they think of their little theories.

Posted by: Peter F. at July 5, 2006 04:59 PM
Lorie van Auken(9/11 widow) said that Richard Clarke "gave top shelf credibility to what many of us in the victims' rights commmunity had suspected for months - that the Bush administration seemed to allow 9/11 to happen."

Patty Casazza(9/11 widow) said of the commission, "I was looking for an investigation into September 11, 2001. That is not what we got." And, later, that "[t]he word 'cover-up' doesn't even seem to do it justice."

Darleen,

I'm familiar with the information you cite about the WTC design.

The crucial part of your comment, as I see it, is this (which I'll go through one detail at a time):

"Once the floor where the impact took place failed,"

But the NIST report (the most recent explanation) does not suggest floor failure. It says collumn failure was the problem. The whole top part of the building came down on the whole bottom part in one piece. So, yes, according to the official story

"the TOTAL WEIGHT of all the floors crashed down"

but not

"on the next [floor],"

rather, on the next floor AND the very intact collumns and spandrels there, which brings us back to your analogy:

"which was no more prepared to take that load then Sean prepared to received a 200 lb anvil."

Or almost you original analogy ... because where's that 20 pound bag of sugar? What role was it playing in your analogy when you first suggested it? Like I say, the WTC below the 90th floor was like Sean already holding a 2000 lb. anvil and you threatening to drop a 200 lb. one on top of it. Sure, he may notice it. But he is a bit more "prepared" than you make out.

Lastly, you say:

"Remember, these floors were, in essense, free of internal support because the trusses transferred the load to the OUTSIDE walls and those walls had been breached."

Well I don't know: I think something like 30 of something like 200 collumns were breached in the perimeter. (And you should remember that each collumn was overdesigned for safety.) The trusses were connected to both the core and the perimeter. And, again, most of the structure was not breached.

So it's still a description of what actually happened (or might have happened) to the steel frame in the 16 seconds that the collapse took that I'm looking for.

That sort of thing can be modelled on a computer (one that is bigger than mine, by people who are smarter than me). It is possible to produce a frame-by-frame simulation of gravity-driven structural failures. That simulation would give me something to work with.

NIST did not provide one: they did not show us what physics and engineering predicts the collapse would look like under the initial conditions they set up.

In short, I'm still wondering.

Best,
T.

Henry

THANK YOU! I've been trying to remember where I saw that show (PBS!)...

.:

That's your proof? Pathetic. 3 people out of 3,000. That's .001%. Which, ironically enough, is also representative of the amount of active grey matter in your brain.

Oh dear, someone's been rattled enough to mass-post long screeds of claims without any backups.

Tom

My snarky rejoinder to Sean wasn't a strict analogy..I was making reference to something designed to easily carry load X then suddenly having load 10.X dumped on it.

Go the Nova link Henry posted. It really is a straight forward explanation of why the floor at the point of impact failed:

We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for--a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side..

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

Tom,
I think Peter has done a great job showing you how controlled demolition explosives would require. And we have no evidence supporting that conjecture. We had evidence that 2 planes flying into the WTC. The details of the physics were given by the links provided by Peter already.

The bottom line is that if you can believe in the controlled demolition explosives, you shouldn't have any problem in believing the fact that the crashing of the planes caused the towers to collapse. The official story is much easier to believe with real external evidences to back it up. The conspiracy has no external evidence to back it up whatsoever.

We engineers know better about computer simulation. Ask NASA about the explosion of their shuttles. When you expounded a kooky theory, it is emcumbened upon you to show real experiments. So far, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up the controlled demolition explosives.

Lee -

No liar moi. I simply linked your assertions within this thread to the same theories espoused by those who claim so fancifully that the WTC towers had to have been destroyed by demolitions instead of airplane-caused damage. Since there are thousands of eyewitnesses and video evidence that the planes did strike, it sure seems to me that the burden of proof is on those theorists. Hand-waving stuff like the WTV buildings simply could not have fallen as fast as they did because, you know, they have concrete in them and, you know, steel beams and stuff --- not quite a direct quote, I admit --- just is not convincing to this engineer.

If you have still a different conspiracy theory, I'd be delighted to look at it. Post a url, why doncha'! The other engineers I work with also really enjoy the humor such theories provide.

Hi Peter,

The NOVA and Eagar stuff is also behind me. The NIST report actually says that these early theories were wrong. I.e., the official account does not endorse them.

Given the state of the discussion (and my curiosity) I'm not satisfied with "yes, like porcelain". I'll grant "immense weight", but I still say: onto an "imposing structure".

Like I said to Darleen, if the top of the building is an anvil then so is the bottom of it. Until, I get a closer description of what was going on in the building, say, 10 seconds into the collapse, I'm not going to believe that initial impact (i.e., the first moment of the collpase) totally destroyed all load-bearing structures in the building, leaving the top to fall unimpeded to the bottom.

It simply doesn't jibe with the many other things I find it useful to believe.

Best,
T.

LoveAmerica,

I guess I sort of walked into that one. I was really just talking about the relationship between words like "some", "all", "none", "any", and "no". I don't want to suggest I have any evidence, my point was that *some* of the details are consistent with controlled demolition and that I can't get gravity-driven collapse to make sense.

No one (who is serious about this) denies that two planes hit and severely damaged the WTC. It's just that after thinking about it for a while (and getting over the shock and awe of it) the collapses -- the THAT of them but especially the HOW of them -- seem odd.

It's a puzzle. I'm not an engineer, but like engineers I enjoy a good puzzle. So I'm puzzling it out. Still puzzled though.

What's going on in the building, say, 4 seconds into the collapse on, say, the 20th floor. Is the floor already falling (because it has no structual support under it because all supports were shattered like pieces of fine china)? What would you see if you looked at the steel frame?

That sort of thing.

Best,
T.

You're welcome darleen, I have no idea if that website is the website of the case study video that was shown to us in class, but it looked similar.

For those who have a background in engineering, wacko theories don't hold water.

Oh dear, someone's been rattled enough to mass-post long screeds of claims without any backups.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 5, 2006 07:02 PM

click the link. most of whats said in there has links to original sources. and the ones that dont are easy to find with Google. wake up moron.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Tom

Do you cook?

Last night we grilled some awesome ribeye steaks and as a side, I did a quick stir-fry of Napa cabbage. The whole thing raw and chopped filled a two quart bowl. Stirfried it suddenly shrunk to about 1 1/2 C.

Conspiracy? No, because the cabbage was mostly air and water which was released by the heat.

As big and heavy as the WTC was, it was still mostly air. 1 acre large concrete floors supported by lightweight trusses anchored ONLY at the core and at the perimeter with (relatively small)anchor clips.

Tom:

No, the NIST report does NOT say the fire theories are wrong. It says (and you Wiki this one easily):

In 2005, NIST issued a series of reports[2] documenting emergency response efforts and events leading up to the collapse. NIST concluded "the buildings would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires, if the fireproofing had not been dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." NIST also found the towers' stairwell design lacked adequate reinforcement.

What Eager points out is that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. True enough. However, again, what the NIST states is that the fireproofing/retardant was blown off after impact. The NIST takes into account Eager's focus on the joints failing between the floors. In the NIST report, "The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns". These perimeter columns buckled and failed, which shifted tremendous weight-bearing load onto the core columns. This was too much for the core columns to handle, so they also buckled and failed. (source: Wikipedia).

Still, an overwhelming majority of engineers agree that the heat of the fires greatly compromised the structural integrity of the steel columns, and was a contributing factor in the collapses.

"."

Why don't you take your link and go find the Holocaust deniers and visit the Arizona Memorial in Hawaii and jabber about how THAT was a conspiracy by FDR.

Then take a flying leap into the ocean.

Fuckwit.

Henry

I'm not an engineer, but my father-in-law is and when you read the sheer hysterical ooga-booga from the Conspiracy trolls here you realize why criminal defense attorneys do NOT want logical thinking engineers on juries!

poor guy. i know reading hurts feeble minds, your kind is only used to having opinions thrown at you, but seriously, take a read. many of the links go directly to mainstream sources. unless of course, you are a proud coincidence theorist.in that case, you already believe all of that stuff was just one big friggin coincidence.

om im sorry, i meant poor girl. Darleen is such an ugly name. im betting the owner fits the name. most rightwing girls are angry fatties anyway.

Yes ".", leave it to the usual Left cultists to be crashing hypocrits ... now with the misogynist ad homenims.

I'm surprised you didn't work a little homophobic smear in there, too.

Your cultist brethren will have to "correct" you later.

most rightwing girls are angry fatties anyway

Yeah, Janet Reno, Ruth bader Ginsberg, Hilary "Cankles" Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Cindy Sheehan are real lookers, eh, period boy? LOL

WTF? I second Darleen's "fuckwit" comment.

Darleen,

You're right about the cabbage.

Just keep in mind that whatever you say about the lower 90 floors (like: mostly full of air) you have to say about the 20 floors that are falling as well. So the image of the anvil is no longer going to work. (Anvils aren't full of air.)

Like I say, I'm familiar with the basic design of the building, i.e., mostly air. Suppose you stacked about 10 empty cardboard boxes on top of each other and dropped another on top of that from a height of 12 feet....

I know, I know, it's nothing like that with structural steel...

But cabbage?

Best,
T.

PS. I'm not arguing that there was a conspiracy. In the months after 9/11 a number of theories were suggested by engineers to explain the collapses. The links to NOVA and Eagar that Peter and others have provided explain some of those ideas. But the latest and most detailed study, i.e., the NIST report, determined them to be wrong. That is, if you believed the pancake theory you were wrong about the "collapse mechanism". That means that, for us ordinary mortals who didn't have the new NIST findings beamed directly into our brains when they came out, there are all kinds of interesting questions and disagreements within the mainstream engineering discussion of this issue long before we get to any conspiracies. It's all in the spirit of trying to understand the event. It doesn't always have to be done in the spirit of defending or attacking the powers that be.

Peter,

I've granted the fire theory for the sake of argument. We are talking about (or I at least am only interested in) the mechanics of the collapse. Truss failure theory (pancake) vs. column failure theory (pile driver). NIST says Eagar and NOVA were wrong about the trusses.

In fact, Eagar's idea is diametrically opposed to the NIST proposal. If the joints were failing between the floors then they could hardly provide the "inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns".

I have also granted, for the sake of argument, that the columns "buckled and failed" around the 90th floor (in the one case).

What I don't understand is how that "induced" the whole building to come down in under 20 seconds.

Best,
T.

to which the rightwing, gullible, feeble minded coincidence theorists say-"but my trusted corporate media didnt tell me about these people, so they MUST all be crazy!"

And the most pertinent question of all?

Why are you people "feeding" these idiots? Leave them alone and they will migrate back over to Loose Change where they belong.

Darleen, you said:

"But it was not designed to sustain the extraordinary circumstance of commerical jet liner bigger than the jets that existed at the time..."

Actually, as I understand it, the trade centers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 - which was a quad-engine jumbo jet capable of flying from New York to paris non-stop.

Go to Wiki and look up the specs, they were big planes!

Engineers intimate with the WTC designs have talked about their belief of the buildings being capable of withstanding "multiple" impacts of 707's.

I see many are still believing the Fairy Tale!

http://tyrannyalert.com/9-11%20fairy%20tale.pdf

Read that PDF and then tell me that we should accept the "Official Theory" of events.

In November, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones challenged the assumption that the twin towers and Building 7 collapsed from fire damage alone, stating "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes -- which were actually a diversion tactic."

"Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," said Jones.
Posted by: . at July 5, 2006 07:56 PM

The same Prf who thinks Jesus went to South America and is working on Cold Fusion. LOL!

And Patrick Chester! quite so - 9.8m/s/s is the acceleration of gravity. Thank you for the correction. If only these loons were having trouble with the units! They don't understand physics, but they are more than happy to disagree with all but one physics professor and he thinks Jesus went to South America.

Another error I made was in saying F=ma is Newton's third law of motion, it's the second.

And also to the person supplying substantiation for AQ's engineers, kudos. and thx.

And as to the appearance of conservative women, you mean like Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham, Lorie Dhu, Condi Rice, the late Nancy Olson, Laura Bush....

Remember it's the liberal women who murder their babies - that's a form of self loathing that starts in the mirror.