Slashdot Mirror

Citizen bhima, I believe they already may have. So there may actually be "competent" biotechnologists out there.....

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17578

WTC Technical Information Repository
Attn: Stephen Cauffman,
NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.

Dear Sirs:

I have examined the documents you provided on your theory of the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires by way of thermal expansion. It is apparent that you have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and thought on this project.

However, like Ptolemyâ(TM)s Theory of Epicycles, you begin with a faulty and unproven assumption. It is also the least likely assumption based on the evidence. Therefore, although your computer modeling may be intricate, your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply âoeadding epicyclesâ to a theory based on a false premise.

Your theory essentially rests on two physical observations:

1. There were office fires in WTC 7 that burned for some hours.
2. The building completely collapsed.

Observation 1 is not in dispute, except as to the location, extent, and effect of the fires. You never observed these fires from inside the building, and you have no actual measurements of the thermal expansion and deformation of the structural steel beams whatever. You never examined any of the steel.

Observation 2 runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire. Every one of them was subjected to thermal expansion, but never before has there been such a collapse. To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.

Your consideration of hypothetical blast scenarios (Appendix D) is disingenuous, to say the least. You rule out a possible blast on the basis that it would have been audible, but was not reported. You consider only RDX and C4, which is RDX-based and known to be noisy. RDX has been in use since WWII and C4 reportedly has been used by terrorists. It is simply not believable that foreign terrorists could have gained unobserved access to WTC 7 before 9/11 (scenario 1) or during the 6 hour interval prior to its collapse (scenario 2). Why did you not consider the use of thermite, thermate, nano-thermites, and other state of the art materials? As shown by Kevin Ryan, NIST has extensive knowledge of and experience with the latter materialsÂ.

In contrast to the non-existent observational basis for your theory, there exists a large and growing body of evidence, physical, eye-witness, anecdotal, and circumstantial, that points to controlled demolition as the reason for the buildingâ(TM)s collapse.

Millions of people worldwide are in ready possession of this evidence. Allow me to briefly review this evidence for you.

Physical Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

1. The rapid onset of collapse indicates controlled demolition. Natural collapses begin slowly as the steel deforms (but this has never before led to collapse from office fires).
2. The symmetrical, straight-down nature of the collapse. In a natural collapse, the building would tend to topple or show asymmetries.
3. The time taken by the collapse, approximately 6.5 seconds. This is almost free-fall speed and indicates little resistance, which is incomprehensible if natural. Your theory of a slower collapse within the outer frame of the building is outrageous speculation.
4. The neat, tidy debris pile, a few stories high, with adjoining buildings essentially untouched. Such a pile is the main objective and hallmark of controlled demolition.
5. The molten metal and high temperatures observed for weeks afterwards in the debris pile. Only incendiary and explosive materials, such as thermite, thermate, and nano-thermites could produce these temperatures. Parti

Greets,

I still haven't seen a video showing anything but roughly free fall speeds of a tower collapsing. How fast have high rise buildings collapsed before that weren't demolished? Did they all fall neatly into their own footprint? The point would be dropped if we were shown any evidence against it. If anything, why does the WTC 7 collapse look exactly like a controlled demolition (the other two towers fall from the top)?

I don't understand your reasoning for the BBC claim. Why would they say it has already collapsed? If they presumed it might collapse, they should say that. It's not hard to see a building collapse, so why would they say it did when it didn't? I'm not blaming the BBC for being involved in the scheme and it's likely no BBC reporter would immediately recognize the WTC 7 building. But by that very logic, how would they know which building DID collapse? If they can't recognize the building if it's standing, why would they recognize it if it fell?

As for the trading, it's not just UAL. It's the trading of options related precisely to those entities that would be affected by it. There were no other unusual trades involving other airlines.

As for the FBI investigating, obviously it is their job. However, if the truth of the matter is the objective (which it surely isn't), there should be an independent investigation, which would in my opinion probably require someone outside the USA heh. Already the whole 9/11 Commission Report committee (which consisted almost entirely of people connected to the Bush administration) has given the truth a bad name.

I've been doing research on the 9/11 story for some time now, and recently I've been in contact with Kevin Barrett (who is a big figure in the movement). He's shown me some resources which more or less clinch it for me that this was an inside job. Now that doesn't mean it was a massive conspiracy. If true, it was likely only a handful of people who knew the situation, and a bunch of other people 'just doing their jobs' and who didn't know exactly what they were doing.

The overall circumstantial evidence for the case that it was an inside job is pretty much overwhelming. The outright lies by the pentagon concerning the FAA situation, the failure to intercept planes (not talking about shooting them), the changing stories -- heh, first the pentagon stated that no jets were scrambled until after the pentagon was hit. Well, that was probably true, but once they realized that incriminated them, they said they were scrambled from certain bases, but of course not the ones that were right next to New York and Washington. But, even from the distant bases they were said to have taken off from, the planes theoretically would have still been able to intercept had they gone fast enough. I don't have the evidence in front of me right now so I can't be terribly specific, but David Ray Griffin has calculated from the pentagon's story that jets that were scrambled to the Pentagon must have only been flying at about 300 mph for the story to line up. What does that say?

Anyway, I don't post much so adding me to the friend's list isn't very rewarding hehe. I keep saying this, but have you read any of David Ray Griffin's books? People like Chomsky who are normally admirable seem to think that the neocons or whoever did this job couldn't possibly have done it because they are just too inept. And he points at Iraq as an example. Unfortunately, I've been told by people who probably know what they are talking about that what's happening in Iraq isn't really considered a failure. Robert Baer, the former CIA agent, in the intro to See No Evil wrote that when the dust settles, American's will see that 9/11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure. It's hard to tell what he meant, but check out the following URL for an interview with him where he talks about 9/11: http://www.911blogger.com/node/1780

For more interesting reading if you can stomac

This is just the tip of the iceberg: http://911blogger.com/node/10025#comment-154991

Actually, 43% of Americans believe there was a cover-up involving 9/11*. And even your link about Apollo states that only 6% believe that the moon landing was faked. The overlap could be 3-4%, not enough to be a significant part of the 9/11 Truth movement. Your strategy of linking people who believe that we don't know the whole truth about 9/11 to a insignificant minority of people who believe something entirely different is a nice distraction though. Also, calling them "a couple kids" then linking to lolloosechange and a YouTube rant for your rebuttal is pretty pathetic.

* Also see this poll which shows that only 16% believe Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.

You could also check out this presentation by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist at UT Austin, where he first revealed evidence of the presence of thermite on debris samples recovered from an apartment building near Ground Zero. The peer-reviewed paper is forthcoming, and will prove once and for all that all 3 buildings that collapsed in NYC on 9/11 were demolished by explosives.

Finally, you can look to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for evidence that the flight data recorder data that they received from a FOIA request matches neither the animations they received, nor the downed light poles, nor the eyewitness testimony from Pentagon security officers of the flight path. One or more of those pieces of evidence were fabricated by somebody working for our government. Why would they do that if they were not covering something up? The flight recorder data ends at 180 feet altitude. The Pentagon is only 40 feet tall, and is 40 feet above sea level. How does a plane crash at about 100 feet above its target? The direction and pitch also do not match the other evidence. Watch it for yourself. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is just getting started. More videos and documents will be available soon.

The small groups of "Screw Loose Change" and other debunkers will be very busy over the next few months trying to debunk all these groups of professionals* with hard evidence. Good luck to them at getting more than their current fraction of web traffic that the 9/11 Truth sites get. They are helpful to people like you when you want to brush off the actual evidence though, no? So I guess they serve their purpose of distraction.

* Also see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for analysis of the actual blueprints which were recently leaked, and the variation between the blueprints and the data produced in the NIST and FEMA reports. And Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer-reviewed scientific papers and journals.

The most interesting thing about the Google Video top 100 has been Loose Change. For weeks it has been the only full length film that isn't short a very short titillation clip (eg Webcam Girls Go Wild) or dubious humour clips (eg funny clips baby fart) that has been in the top 20.

Loose Change is the most popular 9/11 "conspiracy theory" film, no doubt due to its slick graphics, soundtrack and editing -- for an amateur movie it is impressive. However it's not the most accurate movie of its type -- see the discussion on indybay and the detailed Sifting Through Loose Change The 9-11 Research Companion.

Read on for a brief guide to some better 9/11 videos that deserve more attention...

9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used to bring down the buildings? (2006)

This is currently, probably, the best 9/11 video that challenges the official conspiracy theory.

9/11 Revisited concentrates on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings and includes news reports from the day and interviews with experts including Steven E Jones, David Ray Griffin and Jeff King. It is available to view online and via Google Video and the Internet Archive.

9/11 Breaking the Laws of Physics (2006)

This is a lecture from 2006 by BYU Physics Professor Steven E Jones on the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11. It is available from the Internet Archive. The academic paper this presentation is based on is Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?.

The 9/11 Commission Report (2004)

This is a lecture by David Ray Griffin -- professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. He has written many books including The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions on the official 9/11 Report. This lecture is available from theInternet Archive.

9-11 Open Your Eyes the War on Terror is a Lie (2004)

Filmed at the 9/11 International Inquiry (Toronto, May 2004) Open Your Eyes is available on the Internet Archive.

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (2006)

This new film covers the links between the US adminstration, the Republician Party and drugs running and the 9/11 hijackers, it is available on Google Video and there are higher quality versions on 911 blogger, the official film site is http://www.crisisinamerica.org/

War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (2003)

Politically this is the best video on 9/11.

War and Globalization is a lecture, from 2003 by Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of econom

Interesting... able danger investigation able danger testimony

Linked at this blog