Slashdot Mirror

There are many folks, structural engineers, scientists, and ordinary citizens concerned for the future of the U.S. of A questioning the "official" conspiracy theory, see page 39

Maybe "watching Muslims crash airliners into the WTC and Pentagon" changes you, but it certainly does not change the basic falsehood of the official conspiracy theory as to what really brought down the WTC buildings

The thermate proposition is Professor Jones' theory.

Assuming the attack was staged, do you have any evidence that wtc7 would have over seen it?

Assuming the attack was staged, the stagers would've had to have triggered the detonators from /somewhere/. WTC7 floor 23 is as good a candidate as any.

Why couldn't this evidence that you seem to think existed just be loaded into trucks and burned somewhere?

I assume here you're refering to evidence relating to the supposed controlled demolition of WTC 1&2, and not the previously referenced SEC investigations. Electronics (and whatever else is used for controlled demolition) don't burn to well, much better to rig your equipment with explosives and bury them in a pile of steel and powdered concrete.

If you were going to stage an attack like this would you leave any evidence in any form lying around on the day of the attack?

Did you mean "leave any evidence ... lying around BEFORE the attack"? They'd have to keep it somewhere. If you meant AFTER the attack, of course not. And they didn't.

As for Silverstein getting an insurance payout, I'm getting confused. Who do you think staged this attack, Silverstein, Investment Banks or the Government, or perhaps a combination of the three?

One of our previous presidents warned of a "military-industrial complex". I wouldn't say that "the government did 9/11", but that "individuals who've hijacked the ship of state for their own purposes did 9/11" and, having control of the government, twisted the processes thereof to cover their tracks.

Because much of the physical evidence was willfully destroyed, supposition and logical conjecture will have to suffice. See also Scholars for 9/11 Truth: "We check the official 9/11 story against the facts. Learn about our startling discoveries; share them with friends and demand a reinvestigation."

Think of it like this: if you just shake up and open a bottle of coke, itll spray everywhere. If you let it sit long enough for the co2 to dissolve, and open it slowly, there is no sudden shock to release the dissolved gas. Same thing with heating water in the microwave in a perfectly smooth container: you can get it hotter than 100 degrees without boiling, because there is no particular spot for the bubbles (of steam) to form.

Well people/populations are like that. First they take your guns (seems logical enough, especially on a plane, even Im not gonna argue with that) then they take your pocket knives (ok..) then they take your nail clippers and plastic cutlery.. (wha?) then they take your toothpaste (huh? what the fuck?). at every stage the pre-flight search and the screening process gets more invasive, the ID you need (papers please) get more invasive, the database kept of your personal info gets bigger, but no one step is enough to "fizz" the population into a full scale revolt (see armed guards doing body searches at footy games, people arrested and locked up for days for peacefull protests, torture sanctioned by the president, unauthorised wiretapping sanctioned by the president. etc etc

Ask yourself this. If 10 years ago, all in one day, the government was to say: no pocket knives, plastic cutlery, nail clippers, metal thingies, pointy thingies, laptops, phones (assuming you had these two items) gameboys, walkmans, toothpaste, breast milk, bottles of water, mouthwash, god knows what, on planes. Body searches at sports games, they where going to torture people openly and no-one could do a thing about it. They would wiretap whoever they want and no one could do a thing about it, they where going to invade whoever they want and no one could do a thing about it, they would arrest anyone they want as a "terrorist" and hold them without charges indeffinately (while probably torturing them for info or fun) and no one could do a thing about it etc etc WOULDNT YOU BE PISSED OFF????WOuld you rise up and protect yourself, family, friends and children from a police state/fascism?

fucken sheeple. Wake up, or it'll be too late. Anyone alarmed by the above post (ie not a sheeple) start by watching "painful deceptions" on google video, then "the money masters" "truth and lies of 9/11", "martial law 9/11" "terrorstorm" etc etc, or, if you want a more scientific/research based intro, go to here , here , here and here (by the way, why this fake terror and restrictions on flying? SO THAT ONLY THE POWERFULL CAN EASILY FLY of course. Those with private jets and helicopters, limo's waiting and entire wardrobes waiting, wont be worried about this crap. Your average family that has to put up with smelly grumpy kids with no toys to keep them occupied for a 10 hour flight, and the distinct likely hood of being stranded in their destination with NO luggage or possessions beyond what they have on their person will be...)

Start here, at this excellent site: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.html

I have not read the entire site. I started with the first article to catch my eye, titled, "Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication".

The article uses the most boneheaded abuse of probability I've seen in at least a month. By equivalent reasoning, Slashdot doesn't exist, because the odds of a website name starting with "S" is one in 26, and the odds of the second letter being "l" is one in 26, so the odds of Slashdot existing is (1/26)^8, or less than 1 in 200 billion.

I hope the rest of the site is a little more "scholarly", but it certainly hasn't impressed me with that one...

Less, but this building was overengineered, or you might say, solidly built. Designed to take the impact of mulitple jets. So even at a estimate of the fire temps (650C), for this grade steel, it would still have carried a load 2-3 times what was necessary. NIST analyzed what few pieces of steel they could and none showed that the temps exceeded 600C.

I'm just telling you that they don't have to melt to make the building fall down, even neglecting the ballistic damage to the building

But did this building collapse like a building in which the steel melted? It collapsed in 10 seconds. Neatly, no bending, twisting, leaning, i.e. toppling over like you would expect. Check out some of the articles here, especially Prof. Jones of BYU, and the MIT prof.

I have now spent half an hour researching for a forum post when I should be doing related, but not related enough, research for my jobI won't even mention the amount of time frittered away on this stuff, totally unrelated to my job. Although I previously worked on something similar - researching engineering failures for court cases. Does this change my opinion either way of the Bush Admin? No I still consider them nefarious crooks, somewhat more sinister and dangerous than I originally did. Not the guy that caught the 7lb perch, the other guy, the paranoid one that sleeps in a bunker with an Italian made shotgun under his pillow. In the big scheme of things, will anyone be brought to justice for this? Doubtful. But from a, what was that course, "science, politics, ethics & technology" standpoint, it's quite fascinating.

Read that again. Videos were confiscated. How can the companies release them - they don't even have 'em. What procedures were ignored?[NORAD]

Umm, like to defend our country, stuff like that. So no jets were scrambled. They Stood down. You don't find the least problem with that?

indicate that WTC7 also suffered severe structural damage, not just fire.This one's just funny. First MITs Eagar (see the PBS show, why the towers fell), who trotted out the theory for the twins collapse, was mystified, until someone told him that it had some diesel tanks, and thus a fire. Since then, Silverstein, the owner, has admitted he had the building "pulled". Same day. Fancy that. When it takes weeks and 3000lbs of explosives and experts to prepare a bldg for controlled demolition.

Now, seeing as how you are completely misinformed (Popular Mechanics? Do tell...) on these first few issues, I don't see that I should waste the time refuting the rest of your args - what's the point - it's futile right? - y'all will come up with another theory anyway, and disregard the plain facts as usual. Especially your "recycled steel" source, which starts off with a very credible "our take". Fact of the matter is, analysts were able to get a *few* peices of steel, and yes, it took a while to clear the site, but the fact of the matter is the area was completely closed off, and the steel *was* sent to India and China to be recycled. In fact, a driver who took a 1/2 hr extra on his lunch break was promptly fired, that's how serious they were about "tidying" up. Do the research, or at least read the work of people have, rather than regurgitating the govt approved "story".

Exactly! And probably the most paranoid folks in the *world* are people like Cheney, Perle, etc. Thus, the weird thing is, if theory #1 (crazy arabs) doesn't hold water, then theory #2 (controlled demolition) also implies that Cheney or someone, in their extremist paranoia, manifested the very nightmare as reality, the very nightmare that keeps them awake at night, to "spur" americans to action. (What I haven't seen much in these threads is Cheney's involvement in the PNAC, project for a new american century.) Yep, you are durn right about paranoia. It's a wicked one. Like some bizarre Philip K. Dick novel, these extremists have sucked us in to their own nightmarish world.

One more thing: do not confuse any theory that contradicts the govt approved theory as the work of a bunch of whackos. Do the research, read the links above, figure it out.

Exactly! And probably the most paranoid folks in the *world* are people like Cheney, Perle, etc. Thus, the weird thing is, if theory #1 (crazy arabs) doesn't hold water, then theory #2 (controlled demolition) also implies that Cheney or someone, in their extremist paranoia, manifested the very nightmare as reality, the very nightmare that keeps them awake at night, to "spur" americans to action. (What I haven't seen much in these threads is Cheney's involvement in the PNAC, project for a new american century.) Yep, you are durn right about paranoia. It's a wicked one. Like some bizarre Philip K. Dick novel, these extremists have sucked us in to their own nightmarish world.

One more thing: do not confuse any theory that contradicts the govt approved theory as the work of a bunch of whackos. Do the research, read the links above, figure it out.

Exactly! And probably the most paranoid folks in the *world* are people like Cheney, Perle, etc. Thus, the weird thing is, if theory #1 (crazy arabs) doesn't hold water, then theory #2 (controlled demolition) also implies that Cheney or someone, in their extremist paranoia, manifested the very nightmare as reality, the very nightmare that keeps them awake at night, to "spur" americans to action. (What I haven't seen much in these threads is Cheney's involvement in the PNAC, project for a new american century.) Yep, you are durn right about paranoia. It's a wicked one. Like some bizarre Philip K. Dick novel, these extremists have sucked us in to their own nightmarish world.

Exactly! And probably the most paranoid folks in the *world* are people like Cheney, Perle, etc. Thus, the weird thing is, if theory #1 (crazy arabs) doesn't hold water, then theory #2 (controlled demolition) also implies that Cheney or someone, in their extremist paranoia, manifested the very nightmare as reality, the very nightmare that keeps them awake at night, to "spur" americans to action. (What I haven't seen much in these threads is Cheney's involvement in the PNAC, project for a new american century.) Yep, you are durn right about paranoia. It's a wicked one. Like some bizarre Philip K. Dick novel, these extremists have sucked us in to their own nightmarish world.

Huh? Isn't Snopes in the business of debunking claims? Or did you misword your sentence: what I think you were trying to say is that it is easier (and requires less credibility) to make a claim, and it's harder to debunk it?

Whatever you meant, I think it has more to do with *who* made the claim. If we are told, let's say, that Silverstein, owner of the WTC bldgs., "pulled" them on purpose to collect the his insurance policy by Fox News we'd probably believe that over a bunch of web sites saying 19 arab crazys hijacked a plane with a box cutter, somehow managed to avoid NORAD, outflew fighter jets, hit the towers dead on, and the pentagon, and they exploded and collapsed.

As for Snopes, I like the site overall, but Mikkelson really fell down on the job as far as 911, especially with her bias (see the rather odd personal nicknames at the bottom of each article). Many of the "rumors" she has as false simply because that's what she read in the 911 Commission Report, which claimed to investigate every single scrap of evidence, yet somehow forgot to investigate why WTC 7 collapsed. Others that she has marked as unsubstantiated can easily be verified by querying Google to find severable reputable news services. Her source, whatever it is, says otherwise. And sometimes does not even include interesting, verified, reports - for example she has the govt certified report of the cheering Arabs, but stunningly neglects to mention the 6 Israeli agents who were seen cheering and "high fiving" as they filmed the towers burning, and were subsequently mysteriously released. So Forget Snopes. Start here, at this excellent site: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.html

Well, don't call it conspiracy theory then if that trips you up. Ask the simple question: How did the Towers collapse? Do the research. In the links below, Jones points out that in science, one starts from the facts, from the evidence, then you build your theory. But the main stream media has fed you the theory "19 crazy arab hijackers + jet fuel" (the conclusion we are to draw), from which you build your facts. Any facts that don't fit in, are thrown away. That's bad science. No wonder people are confused. One simple example: take the 911 Report. Didn't even cover the collapse of WTC 7. Why? Because it doesn't make sense, doesn't fit in with their "theory".

The chain of events leading up to them is always clear in retrospect, but another flaw in conspiracy theory is that it attributes such masterful vision and control to the conspiracists leading into the event, and then presumes such incompetence in handling and covering it up. In reality, no one has such complete control nor such prescience.

What incompetence? If "conspiracy" theorists are still relegated to the back pages, if at all, and dismissed as theorists, well they did a very good job. One flaw in the "19 Arab taking out the towers" theory is the military precision required for an effort like this. Moussawi? C'mon.

If you follow the "theory" as trotted out by the Main Stream Media, there was incredible *incompetence* that allowed this to happen. The incompetence of our CIA, such that every other spy agency in the world was warning American officials, yet they were ignored. The incompetence that low-level underlings at the FBI tried to report to their superiors that foreigners trying to learn how to fly, but were stonewalled in their request to investigate - not once, but 70 times! Criminal negligence, or just following orders?

Condi, or maybe Bush said, "Who could've imagined this would happen?". Well, just the military, because that is apparently the reason NORAD was mysteriously shut down, and no jets were scrambled, because the flight control folks were told this was a "training exercise" - involving hijacked jets hitting the towers. So they just happened to be training for an attack that no one could've imagined.

One of the best sources for technical details is the WTC 7 Research site, which is apparently down. Odd. This one is similar, not sure if it's just down or >>> the descent is beginning!

Bunker? Then that must be Cheney.

Tell you what. Do some research, especially Jeff King's critique of fellow MITer's "theory", and BYU's Prof. Steven Jones and then come back and tell us which "theory" is more plausible: (1) that the buildings were "pulled" (controlled demolition) (2) 19 losers who could barely fly somehow evaded NORAD, evaded a superpower's "Star Wars" defense system and supersonic jets, hit the towers, and the jet fuel (what was left of it) managed to start a fire that weakened that evaporated steel and "trusses" (whatever) and the building collapsed in under 10 seconds, thus defying basic scientific laws. And WTC 7 collapsed the same day even though no plane hit it, and other building closer to the twins didn't. And PNAC (project for a new american century) whose members include Cheney and Jeb Bush, wrote that Americans were slow to change, a Pearl Harbor incident was needed for faster paced changed (those Americans, always in a rush) - but of course, this is entirely beyond the capability of Cheney.

If the conspiracy whackos are wrong, why all the secrecy? Why did the 911 Commission not even review WTC 7?