181. @Michael at 9:57PM on Jul 14th 2007

Please do some proper research before you engage in misinformation and disinformation the kind which has been repeatedly debunked. You guys should try something new. I must say I was actually surprised though, by your mention of McCormick. Hardly anyone from your side brings that one up anymore.

Remember evidence, not insults and shoddy research, is the key:


>>>Initial reports had OBL denying involvement. He subsequently claimed responsibility on numerous occasions.

Really? When? Where? Besides, conflicting testimony from a suspect renders the testimony inadmissable.
Here's Bin Laden saying he's innocent

http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

Pakistan said the U.S. must furnish proof of Bin Laden's guilt before they handed him over to the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1543135.stm
They never did.

Besides, you eve heard of a false confession? Google it.




>>>"We know the physics of the Official Conspiracy theory are impossible."

Incorrect. It has happened before, despite your crowds long and loud claims to the contrary.>>"No steel high rise has ever collapsed due to fires."

Incorrect. The steel framed McCormick center in Chicago collapsed from this EXACT scenario in 1968.>
So did the sight and sound theater in Philadelphia>He's been on the FBIs most wanted list ever since 9/11.>"We know 19 amateurs, seven of whom are still alive"

There has never ever been any credible evidence to support this ridiculous claim. Only unsubstantiated eyewitness claims. Don't you think if this were true these men would come out and prove to the world they weren't involved?>"Scattered office fires can't weaken structural steel to the point of global near free fall collapse."

It didn't fall anywhere near free-fall. The camera angle you are looking at is only one side of the building. The other side collapsed first as has been proven. Where have you been?.>"NIST keeps changing its explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2."

Thats how science works. Hypothesis are changed as more information and experimentation is presented.>"The 9/11 Commission contradicts NIST in its claim that the WTC was destroyed in a "pancake collapse"."

Except NIST never made such a claim. In fact NIST stated that the pancake effect was the RESULT of the collapse, not the CAUSE of it. You fellas really need some reading comprehension classes.>>"FEMA doesn't know why WTC7 collapsed in 7 seconds."

Probably because is didn't collapse in 7 seconds.

Uhh, yeah it did. Please go to Google video or Youtube and show me where the WTC7 collapsed more quickly than 7 seconds.
Are you going to show me the footage of the penthouse collapsing first? Then please show me how the penthouse collapse precedes the fall of WTC7 itself. What cause the collapse of the penthouse?

Daniel Richards at 11:13PM on Jul 14th 2007

182. "Guess what Micheal? Im tired, i dont have time to knock down all of your lies in support of the "official" fairy tale of 9/11, but heres one until tomorrow when i shred the rest:"

You guys will grasp at anything and try to make it "prove" your theory. Problem is, another popular theory is that Bush was obviously involved because supposedly George H W Bush was with one of UBLs brothers on the morning of 9-11-01.

The fools you follow set it up so either way they are "right". Either UBL was not involved, "proving" a U.S. conspiracy, or if he was involved then family ties to the Bush family "prove" the U.S. had prior knowledge, thus conspiracy. It's a no lose proposition for you guys. Very cult like.

Next you'll be telling me how Bush Sr. was involved in the assassination of JFK and behind the attempt on Reagan.

Let me ask you this. If there is even a shred of validity to the claims you folks make, why hasn't there been a single legitimate news organization inquiry? Don't you think such a story would be an investigative reporters dream? Or is the media part of the cover-up, too? This conspiracy keeps getting bigger and bigger...

Michael at 12:16AM on Jul 15th 2007

183. What a sophomoric little hit-job. Are Americans truly such fools to you? Yet, such a shallow diatribe lacks the punch needed to affront at human level. But I'm afraid you have insulted every other species which suckle their young.

You are a rank shill for the status quo. Your pestilent enthusiasm to bring down a real man, Ron Paul, belies a glaring fear of him and the masters who sway your quill. You're a pathetic, insipid, sycophantic wisp and your copy is repugnant.

You Sir, are no patriot. And you, with the assistance of all of the other useless, phony, mainstream-media-groomed, hero-worshiped, corporate-slave "candidates", could not wipe the sweat off Ron Paul's balls.


Remember the USS Liberty.

mike williams at 11:50PM on Jul 14th 2007

184. Well, Scott, you obviously are oblivious to Operation Northwoods and other terroristic acts our own government has either planned or carried out with the purpose of gaining support for wars or to increase poll numbers. Why dont you try READING and STUDYING history--instead of just giving an OPINION. The Gulf of Tonkin incident NEVER HAPPENED. It was ADMITTED it didnt happen----RESEARCH pal, RESEARCH

911truth at 12:15AM on Jul 15th 2007

185. Scott is a paid operative. Scott,

Who do you work for?
Who pays you?
Who asked you to write this article?

Here is the link to Scott's web site:
http://www.environmentalrepublican.blogspot.com/

Research this person, you will ultimately determine is real agenda.

In the mean time, don't play by their rules. They are attempting to get people off of the liberty message and on to a defensive posture. Stick to the vision that we all want, don't let these scum take you off track.

Navari at 12:17AM on Jul 15th 2007

186. "Please do some proper research before you engage in misinformation and disinformation the kind which has been repeatedly debunked."

Were you talking to me or yourself here?

"You guys should try something new. I must say I was actually surprised though, by your mention of McCormick. Hardly anyone from your side brings that one up anymore."

I'm not on any "side" but McCormick is a great example that destroys the theory that fire alone can't cause a steel framed high rise building to collapse. I'm from Chicago and that instance sprang immediately to mind the first time I heard the ridiculous theory "Steel framed building can't fall from fire".

>>>Initial reports had OBL denying involvement. He subsequently claimed responsibility on numerous occasions.

"Really? When? Where? Besides, conflicting testimony from a suspect renders the testimony inadmissable."

I see you are now not only the investigator, but also the prosecutor and the judge.

You guys also like to bring up the quote from FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. None of you ever post his quote explaining it, though:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

No mystery here at all. He clearly states they COULD charge him with 9/11 but choose not to for strategic reasons. But you guys never, ever print this.

Why is that? Simple, that would put CONTEXT to the situation. You guys can't print anything that harms your already shaky theories.

"Pakistan said the U.S. must furnish proof of Bin Laden's guilt before they handed him over to the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1543135.stm"
They never did."

Wow. Just wow. For starters it was AFGHANISTAN not Pakistan. That is a MAJOR distinction as Pakistan has been working with us on his capture from the beginning. For you not to know the difference is telling.

It wasn't the Government of Afghanistan, it was the TALEBAN who insisted on "proof". Being as how the Taleban was an invading force financed largely by UBL there is no evidence in the world that would have gotten them to turn him over.

"Besides, you eve heard of a false confession? "

Is that a joke? You ever heard of a guilty man originally pleading not guilty?

"Uhh, yeah it did. Please go to Google video or Youtube and show me where the WTC7 collapsed more quickly than 7 seconds."

Uhhh, WTC 7 started collapsing 3 hours before the final collapse, why would I try to show it took less than 7 seconds?

Video without context shows nothing. Here's an experiment for you. Go to blockbuster and rent a movie you've never seen. Fast forward to somewhere in the middle of the movie and watch 3 minutes of it. Turn the movie off then write a report on the whole movie.

Michael at 12:18AM on Jul 15th 2007

187. "Down with corporate media (FOX, ABC, CNN, We The People Are Watching You). You shills will pay one day for selling out the American people.

Hopefully your kind will pay the price in the form of a mass mob of pitchfork wieldin' conspiracy "nuts" that ram down your doors and burn every single fascist, sell-out scumbag institution that dare promote such warmongering, disinfo. garbage like the article we have here."

The entirety of the Media is now in on the conspiracy.

The defense rests.

Michael at 12:44AM on Jul 15th 2007

188. Im responding to Michael from post 122. He said the McCormick Fire proves that a steel-framed building DID collapse once. WRONG. Although the McCormick building ROOF collapsed---it was not a TOTAL collapse of the building like the Twin Towers were. Thats what we're talking about when we say "there has never been a steel framed building collapse due to fire". We are talking about TOTAL collapses. We sometimes site the Windsor building in Madrid that burned in 2005----a SECTION of this building collapsed, but it wasnt a TOTAL collapse like the towers were, and neither was the McCormick Place building. Get your facts straight before posting----you embarrassed yourself. Oh, and the McCormick Fire was in 1967, not 1968--he even got the year wrong! Watch the film of WTC collapsing---you said it didnt collapse in 7 seconds...youre right..it was more like 6 seconds. Then, Michael doesnt provide PROOF of his claim. OUR proof is in the freaking VIDEO of it! Why would you embarrass yourself and say it didnt collapse in 7 seconds when there is VIDEO of it! The twin towers collapsed werent free fall speed? They collapsed in TEN seconds! THERES VIDEO OF IT! Ive seen the films 100 times----its TEN seconds! TEN! If TEN seconds ISNT free fall time are you saying that free fall time is FASTER than TEN seconds? How?? For YOUR information, even the FBI doesnt pin 9-11 on Bin Laden! go to www.fbi.gov----look at Bin Ladens profile---it doesnt mention 9-11 as one of his crimes----HMMMMMMMM, I wonder why?????? NO EVIDENCE---THATS WHY. Bin Laden was a CIA operative. His CIA name was Tim Osman----google it. The official story of 9-11 is a conspiracy. The question is: Which conspiracy do you believe? That 19 cave dwellers outsmarted the strongest and best military, the best intelligence and defense agencies in the WORLD? How could a plane be ALLOWED to hit the Pentagon? The most survielled and protected building in THE WORLD??? You believe our agencies and defense systems were that weak? It takes MORE faith to believe YOUR theory!

911truth at 12:37AM on Jul 15th 2007

189. Do realize the sheer number of people that would have to be involved in a conspiracy of the nature you suggest? And you believe none of these people would have talked by now? Or exposed the plan beforehand?


Michael at 9:57PM on Jul 14th 2007

"the sheer number? like 19 guys directed by Osama? that sheer number?"

Um, nope. The sheer number it would take to first pull off a Government conspiracy then the number it would take to cover it up. We aren't talking about a handful of people here. We are talking thousands who would have had to have knowledge of at least part of the plan.

"Your logic is obviously flawed dumbass."

Obviously?

"It took key people in key positions."

Please do name these key positions. Please don't leave any out.

"Osama didnt stage wargames or stand-down NORAD,"

War games are staged nearly daily. Nobody told NORAD to stand down. Where do you people get this crap? Have you bothered to READ what actually happened RE: NORAD?

"nor did he wire the CIA/SEC/FBI/Giuliani office building that was WTC7."

Wire? Are you working from the assumption that WTC7 was a controlled demolition as fact?

Michael at 12:44AM on Jul 15th 2007

190. idiot Michael got that from www.debunking911.com----the idiots website. I notice on that website when they talk about the McCormick Place building and the Sight and Sound building, they show NO pictures of it----and they give NO examples of buildings that have TOTAL collapses like the towers were. They even site the Madrid building as a defense for THEM---when its actually a defense for US, because that building burned for 24 straight hours and the WHOLE building burned, and even after 24 hours of the ENTIRE buidling on fire, only a small section collapsed----understandable since it burned for a DAY STRAIGHT and it was the ENTIRE building----but yet the frame remained and it wasnt a TOTAL collapse---and they have the nerve to use that as THEIR defense! LOL!

911truth at 12:46AM on Jul 15th 2007

191. @Michael at 9:57PM on Jul 14th 2007

2007Please do some proper research
before you engage in misinformation and disinformation the kind which
has been repeatedly debunked. You guys should try something new. I
must say I was actually surprised though, by your mention of
McCormick. Hardly anyone from your side brings that one up
anymore. Remember evidence, not insults and shoddy research, is the
key:

Osama Bin laden says he didn't do it. Doesn't matter if he later allegedly claimed responsibility.

Besides, conflicting testimony from a suspect renders the testimony
inadmissible. That means you can't use it either way. That means we have no credible evidence that Osama Bin laden did it.
However, just for the record, here's Bin Laden saying he's innocent

http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

Pakistan said the U.S. must furnish proof of Bin Laden's guilt before they
handed him over to the
U.S. They never did.

Besides, you ever heard of a false confession? Google it.



The FBI does not want him for 9/11. Go to the FBI website and see for yourself:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

That's how I'm privy to what the FBI knows. It can't convict Bin laden in a court of law or anywhere else for that matter. It says so itself.



Yes there is much evidence to support the continued existence of the some of the hijackers. The BBC, Guardian and Telegraph have all carried stories about them. If it's a case of mistaken identity why has the FBI not updated the hijacker list? How do we know who did it all?

We know the physics of the Official Conspiracy theory are impossible. Prove that fires brought the buildings down


I just love it when you guys bring up the McCormick
There's no comparison between the McCormick and WTC 1,2 and 7
Unlike McCormick, The twin towers were intense grid-like structures with 47 vast steel-reinforced pillars running up the middle. They were over-engineered and designed to take "multiple impacts of jetliners," according to WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini.

Compare this to McCormick Place which collapsed, according to the Chicago Public Library, under severe conditions, including a failure of water supply to attendant firefighters, non-existent sprinkler systems, the entire building catching fire, 1,250 art exhibits within the building which were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic, and faulty wiring not up to building code.

Compare this to the WTC fires, which were almost extinguished according to the firefighters tapes, sprinkler systems that activated as soon as the planes hit, and reinforced fire-proofing which was installed after an intense fire in the WTC north tower (from which the building obviously did not collapse) in 1975.

Also it had a cheap tar roof. It was not a steel high rise. The McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building.


http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html

The other building you site, the Sight and Sound theater in PA also did not completely collapse. If you visit here:

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

you’ll will see that this PDF has very clear photographs of the damage. THE ROOF IS WHAT FELL. The building itself remained standing. The photos begin on page 22.

You still have to answer how scattered office fires can't weaken structural steel to the point of global near free fall collapse.

The buildings fell at near free fall speed. Watch any video. You will see a collapse time of 10-12 seconds. NIST itself says on page 305 that the south tower fell in ten seconds. However, I will humor you. Let's say the towers fell in twenty five seconds. How did the top part (using NIST's current explanation), the lightest part of the building, smash through each structurally reinforced floor below it all the way down to the bottom without violating the laws of conservation of energy and momentum? Make sure to mention that the lower part of the structure is the heaviest part since it must hold the largest upper sections.


NIST keeps changing its explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. You say this is"how science works. Hypothesis are changed as more information and experimentation is presented."
Well you're wrong. That's how failure to divine the obvious works. NIST has refused to consider the hundreds of eyewitness accounts, police and fireman included, of explosions. Nor has it even acknowledged the documented presence of molten steel at the WTC site weeks after the collapses.

The NIST investigation was incomplete and fraudulent from the outset. It makes itself irrelevant right out of the gate by stating its mission is not to explain the collapse in its entirety but rather confines itself to the conditions prior to onset of collapse. The NIST report essentially a “pre-collapse” theory: "[the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12;
The report does not explain what happens after the collapse began.
Just who on earth does NIST think that will satisfy? If you can't explain the mechanics of the entire collapse sequence, why bother with the report at all? It's like a doctor writing up a report for a murder victim stating that he would only tell you what happened up until the bullet first made impact with the victim's body but tell you nothing of the damage the bullet actually did to the victim to cause his death.

NIST is currently relying on an inadequate and silly, sort of pile driver theory to explain the fall of the buildings. But problems abound with the pile driver theory:

1) It is incomplete by NIST's own admission since it does not explain the full collapse sequence allegedly caused by the pile driver.

2) The re is no photographic evidence of a pile driver.

3)The steel supports did not get hot enough to initiate collapse.

4) If the steel did get hot enough to collapse it is in the nature of steel that it becomes weaker gradually as the temperature rises. This means that the structure must initially sag slowly. That is not what the videos show. The videos show that the roof of all three buildings moved down with an acceleration close to free fall and that this rate of acceleration was present right at the start.

5) the claim that the top block of the towers provided a huge impact is shown to be false because it can be seen that the top block disintegrated as it fell. Thus there would be not one large impact but a series of small impacts as each fragment arrived. If the impact smashes anything it is not the undamaged lower portion of the tower but the top block itself. It is not until the top block is almost destroyed that the lower portion begins to collapse. This is nicely illustrated in this gif with red lines helping to assess how the top is collapsing. The lines are not drawn quite right and could have shown more collapse before the dust obscures what is happening. I no longer know where I got this gif. It would be good to find out so that it can be acknowledged.

6) If the top block did impact the lower portion and start it collapsing it would be slowed by the impact and each subsequent impact on the floors below would cause slowing, and the total fall time would be longer.

7) The pile driver theory violates the laws of conservation of energy and momentum


8)Sixthly, the official story has it that the potential energy of the building provided the energy to pulverize the concrete, fling it and some of the steel outward, and expand the dust cloud in seconds about five times the building volume against atmospheric pressure. Unfortunately for the official story, energy cannot be used twice. If it does all this destruction and expansion it is not available to provide the kinetic energy of the downward acceleration so the acceleration would be much reduced, if it happened at all.

9) The vast amount of debris flying and landing outside the footprint of the towers contradicts the
concentrated singularly downward momentum suggested by the pile driver theory.

The 9/11 Commission contradicts NIST in its claim that the WTC was destroyed in a "pancake collapse".
Michael,yYou say "Except NIST never made such a claim. In fact NIST stated that the pancake effect was the RESULT of the collapse, not the CAUSE of it."
Wrong. NIST never proposed the pancake collapse. FEMA and the 9/11 Commission did.
Moreover, NIST offers no explanation for events after collapse initiation.
Second, there was no pancake collapse. Steel reinforced structures don't pancake collapse. There
is no photographic evidence of a pancake collapse; only that of a controlled demolition.

FEMA doesn't know why WTC7 collapsed in 7 seconds.
Please go to Google video or Youtube and show me where the WTC7 collapsed more quickly than 7 seconds. Are you going to show me the footage of the penthouse collapsing first? Then please show me
how the penthouse collapse precedes the fall of WTC7 itself. What caused the collapse of the penthouse?

Daniel Richards at 1:12AM on Jul 15th 2007

192. "Im responding to Michael from post 122. He said the McCormick Fire proves that a steel-framed building DID collapse once. WRONG. Although the McCormick building ROOF collapsed---it was not a TOTAL collapse of the building like the Twin Towers were. Thats what we're talking about when we say "there has never been a steel framed building collapse due to fire". We are talking about TOTAL collapses."

I see. You mean like my OTHER cite? The Philly sight and sound building?

By the way, it was much more than "the roof" that collapsed in Chicago.

"We sometimes site the Windsor building in Madrid that burned in 2005----a SECTION of this building collapsed, but it wasnt a TOTAL collapse like the towers were, and neither was the McCormick Place building. Get your facts straight before posting----you embarrassed yourself."

The construction of the Twin Towers lended itself to what eventually happened. Unlike most steel framed buildings, the WTC had no interior support posts or walls because the plan was to create large, open space. Literally, the only support those building had were the outside beams and the floors themself kept said beams in place. Ask anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of construction if they would build even a two story building with such a plan and they will laugh at you.

The plans for those buildings would NEVER pass code today. Heck, you couldn't get a permit to build a single story home without interior support these days, let alone a 110 story commercial building.

And the fact remains that steel framed building CAN collapse from a fire. The claim was fire can't melt steel so it's impossible. That claim has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that much better re-enforced buildings only partially collapsed doesn't change that in the least.

Michael at 1:16AM on Jul 15th 2007

193. All I can say to the author of this emotionally driven "hit piece" is that you are so ineptly short on any semblance of facts and real history. For instance "Here we have a presidential candidate who is saying on the record that he believes the current administration is capable of faking a terror attack, which will kill people, simply to advance their ideology" . First, do some research, do it with an open mind and an unbiased desire for truth and only truth, on the following: Operation Northwoods (CIA De-classified and has fully come forth admitting it was true. HELLO. ANYOONE HOME IN THERE, MR. "I've got my head in the sand"???? Also look at the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. After doing that with your time (instead of writing emotionally charged rants that sorely lack in any journalistic integrity whatsoever), then post a reply and let all us here know what you learned. Wake up.

Jonathan at 10:01PM on Jul 20th 2007

194. Very juvinile comment about Ron Paul. I'm surprised this person is allowed to write such nonsense. Ron Paul is an American who believes in the government formed by our founders. He supports that and nothing more...

Ken B at 1:27AM on Jul 15th 2007

195. Too bad that the Gulf of Tonkin is real and the American government DOES have a history of conspiring to carry out false flag operations as evidenced by Operation Northwoods and Ron Paul is right and this 'writer' is a professional liar.

Dave at 1:49AM on Jul 15th 2007