[pbleighton]

Quote

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it."

http://www.gnn.tv/ar...icle.php?id=761

[Winstonm]

I think by now the intention of invading Iraq well before 9-11 has been so well documented, not only in the posted piece but from memos and information about Dick Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's contributions to the same cause that it is almost anit-news at this point - no one seems to care.

IMO, the only possible way to rouse the American people from their American-Idol induced lethargy is to find a smoking gun that links the 9-11 attacks to more than the Muslim hijackers.

Dr. S. Jones, best known and most widely respected of the 9-11 research scientists has analyzed - and had analyzed by independent laboratories as confirmation - dust and steel from the collapsed towers: the chemical signature is consistent with the residue left from thermate use. Still, this is not enough.

Gordon Ross of Dundee, Scottland, degreed in Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, has written a peer-reviewed analysis of the collapses that shows that the Law of Conservation of Energy made a total gravity-driven collapse impossible.
Still, this is not enough.

An organization of professional pilots, Pilots for 9-11 Truth has analyzed the data from the black box of the plane that hit the pentagon - a failure by the pilot to reset a barometric pressure instrument that affects the altimeter readings shows that the plane was actually 400 feet too high to have struck the building.
Still, that is not enough.

None of these people are kooks, crackpots, weirdos, or conspiracy nuts - they are sober, somber, professionals who have grave doubts about what happened that day.

But I guess that is still not enough, either.

And all they are asking for is a neutral and thorough reinvestigation - but I guess that is asking too much.

[bid_em_up]

Winstonm, on May 1 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

I think by now the intention of invading Iraq well before 9-11 has been so well documented, not only in the posted piece but from memos and information about Dick Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's contributions to the same cause that it is almost anit-news at this point - no one seems to care.

IMO, the only possible way to rouse the American people from their American-Idol induced lethargy is to find a smoking gun that links the 9-11 attacks to more than the Muslim hijackers.

Dr. S. Jones, best known and most widely respected of the 9-11 research scientists has analyzed - and had analyzed by independent laboratories as confirmation -  dust and steel from the collapsed towers: the chemical signature is consistent with the residue left from thermate use.  Still, this is not enough. 

Gordon Ross of Dundee, Scottland, degreed in Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, has written a peer-reviewed analysis of the collapses that shows that the Law of Conservation of Energy made a total gravity-driven collapse impossible.
Still, this is not enough.

An organization of professional pilots, Pilots for 9-11 Truth has analyzed the data from the black box of the plane that hit the pentagon - a failure by the pilot to reset a barometric pressure instrument that affects the altimeter readings shows that the plane was actually 400 feet too high to have struck the building.
Still, that is not enough.

None of these people are kooks, crackpots, weirdos, or conspiracy nuts - they are sober, somber, professionals who have grave doubts about what happened that day. 

But I guess that is still not enough, either. 

And all they are asking for is a neutral and thorough reinvestigation - but I guess that is asking too much.

Ok, I get the points about the first two.

But what does the bit about the altimeter showing the plane was 400 feet too high to have actually struck the building have to do with anything? Surely these people aren't blind, and I dont think David Copperfield was around to make the plane dissappear just as it was about to impact the building. In other words, it wasn't an illusion, you can clearly see the plane hit the building. It doesn't matter what the danged altimeter says.

And just another curiousity, if a jet-fueled fire cannot reach temperatures capable of melting steel, as you have referenced in other articles, can you offer an explanation of the recent bridge collapse in San Francisco where a tanker truck burst into flames and "melted the steel bolts" supporting the bridge, resulting in its collapse? Or at least that's what they are saying occured, maybe it was really a government plot designed to invade Alcatraz.

EDIT: I later reread this and noted that you were referring to the plane that struck the Pentagon, and not the twin towers. I missed that the first time. Makes a little more sense now, although I still say it wasn't an illusion.

[Winstonm]

Quote

And just another curiousity, if a jet-fueled fire cannot reach temperatures capable of melting steel, as you have referenced in other articles, can you offer an explanation of the recent bridge collapse in San Francisco where a tanker truck burst into flames and "melted the steel bolts" supporting the bridge, resulting in its collapse? Or at least that's what they are saying occured, maybe it was really a government plot designed to invade Alcatraz.

I don't know why you bother to ask me - I am not the expert. If you were interested enough, you would have already known that information from experts in physics is available that explains how this comparison is invalid. You seem to indicate knowledge of physics that compares the bridge collapse to the fires and collapse in the WTC towers - I would be interested in seeing your credentials and reading any peer-reviewed articles you have published. I am not closed to seeing both sides of the argument.

However, if you are not an expert, and if you won't accept that men of reason, science, and logic, professionals in their fields, true experts, have serious, scientific doubts and valid, peer-reviewed expression of doubt about the explanation of 9-11, whatever I say will not matter.

Comtempt prior to investigation does not yield a valid answer.

Quote

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

You have to either find your own answers or ignore the questions. If you want answers about physics, ask a phisicist. If you don't really want to know the answer, don't ask.

[Winstonm]

Quote

EDIT: I later reread this and noted that you were referring to the plane that struck the Pentagon, and not the twin towers. I missed that the first time. Makes a little more sense now, although I still say it wasn't an illusion.

You seem to have the same misconception as do many about the core worldwide group of 100 or so serious professionals who are studying this event - people not given to flights of fancy or wild conjecture - and to the reasons why, against great opposition, they are doing it.

This particular group is not making any claims as to what happened.
They show over and over that what we were told happened either cannot be right or was an event so unique as to be essential to be understood.
They want all the collapse data available released for worldwide scientific scrutiny, and if so needed, a reinvestigation as to what caused the collapses.

Why is there such resistance against all of science and all of engineering and all of physicists worldwide from seeing the data, computer models, and NIST research that pinpoints the event? These are the same people who will be planning and constructing and teaching budding engineers how to build our future towers - yet they are barred from seeing the scientific data that explains the greatest collapse event in the history of mankind.

Does that make any sense at all?

[bid_em_up]

Winstonm, on May 1 2007, 09:42 PM, said:

Quote

And just another curiousity, if a jet-fueled fire cannot reach temperatures capable of melting steel, as you have referenced in other articles, can you offer an explanation of the recent bridge collapse in San Francisco where a tanker truck burst into flames and "melted the steel bolts" supporting the bridge, resulting in its collapse? Or at least that's what they are saying occured, maybe it was really a government plot designed to invade Alcatraz.

I don't know why you bother to ask me - I am not the expert. If you were interested enough, you would have already known that information from experts in physics is available that explains how this comparison is invalid. You seem to indicate knowledge of physics that compares the bridge collapse to the fires and collapse in the WTC towers - I would be interested in seeing your credentials and reading any peer-reviewed articles you have published. I am not closed to seeing both sides of the argument.

However, if you are not an expert, and if you won't accept that men of reason, science, and logic, professionals in their fields, true experts, have serious, scientific doubts and valid, peer-reviewed expression of doubt about the explanation of 9-11, whatever I say will not matter.

Comtempt prior to investigation does not yield a valid answer.

Quote

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

You have to either find your own answers or ignore the questions. If you want answers about physics, ask a phisicist. If you don't really want to know the answer, don't ask.

Really Winston, I said no such thing.

I have read the articles you have listed, and while certainly interesting for the most part, even though I did find some parts of them uncomforting, I am not "willing" to accept at this point their hypothesis'. That's just my own layman's opinion.

I offered no "knowledge" of physics, beyond what the "media" is currently stating is the cause of the SF bridge collapse. That the truck caught fire and melted the steel bolts supporting the bridge......since many of the articles *you* have provided have stated that fires cannot reach temperatures capable of melting steel, I just found it to be interesting, and asked if you had any comment regarding this.

The last statement was simply a smart remark.

That said, are physicists also civil engineers?

Let me think for a minute, just babblings in writing. Say that I am a civil engineer, I have to design two large buildings to build in the middle of a highly populated area. Am I going to design these buildings in such a manner that at some point in time they can be demolished, if needed? Entirely possible. If so, they would have to fall top-down, would they not? (obviously they cannot collapse sideways in a highly populated area.) Am I going to account for the possibilities of the buildings being struck by a missile? Probably not, at least not at the time they were designed. So the buildings themselves had already been designed to collapse. The planes/jet fuel simply triggered this inherent design. Possibility? Sure. Probability? More so than if it was a covert operation as means of justification to start a war, imo.

Was there a design flaw in the buildings themselves? Entirely possible. Given the earlier attempted bombings of the twin towers, it would be reasonable to believe that al-Queda had access to the building plans and had discovered such a weakness. Possibility? Sure. Probability? See above.

Third option. Follow the money. It is my understanding that a certain person or group of persons had recently (in 2001) either financed or refinanced the twin towers. It is also my understanding that this person or persons were facing huge uninsured losses on the buildings themselves, and I think it was because of "known" structural defects in the buildings. I believe I heard that the number was upwards of 1 billion US dollars. It was already a given that the buildings were going to have to be demolished anyway. It is also my recollection that the then owner(s) of the Trade Center either is Israeli or has Israeli ties. Now, if one were deviant enough, they certainly could go to a group such as al-queda and say "I have a win-win proposition for us". Your group gets to make a strike against the American infidels and the Isreali's as well since we own them and destroy the twin towers. I will ensure that they are wired with thermite to effectively facilitate the destruction of the buildings and my insurance will be forced to pay for the destruction and rebuilding of them. I am willing to pay you X amount of dollars to do this (X = name your price), in addition to financing the costs of the operation. While you are at it, go ahead and hit a couple of key US targets as a diversion to the real reason for the attacks on the Trade Centers. Would the terrorist groups do this? Probably. Would the owners of the Trade Center do this? Well, it is amazing what some people will do for money. Especially large sums of money.

Sick, isn't it?

All three could be "probable" or "possible" scenarios, in addition to the one being claimed by the "conspiracy" theorists. Or it could just be a bunch of lunatics with nothing but hatred in their hearts or misled ideas regarding the US got lucky via freak occurences, which in the end, had results beyond what even they could have imagined.

Personally, I try to believe the most likely scenario (the latter, imo).

And for all the "scientific" evidence the people you cite are claiming, that scenario simply would require the cooperation of too many people to effectively coordinate what essentially amounts to having an order to commit the atrocious murders of 3,000 people or an attack on the U.S. as a justification to commit to war with Iraq, for all of them to remain silent. I just don't see how it can be a "likely" scenario.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Or at least that's what they are saying occured, maybe it was really a government plot designed to invade Alcatraz.

Maybe I misread the intentions, but I thought this a somewhat flippant comment that relayed a total disregard for the professional opinions expressed.

I can understand the doubt due to what is seemingly an impossible scenario - but again, the object is not try to show "how" it was done or by "whom", or to surmise how it could have been covered up, but simply to find the truth as to what caused the collapses - the hypothetical you suggest is just that - a hypothesis. These people had the original tower blueprints, the makers of the steel in the buildings, samples of the steel and dust residue. They are not guessing but using known scientific techniques - and so far their work contradicts the gravity-driven collapse theory.
If they find indesputable proof of demolition, their work is done - the who, how, and why would then be up to criminal investigators.

I only rely on one site for information: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
This is the group wth which Dr. Jones is involved. Not only do they have the scientific articles the show the doubts, they also have articles to debunk other off-the-wall claims.

They only have one purpose - to find out what happened and what caused the towers and building 7 to collapse. They are totally uninterested in the "who" or the "how". That is not the aim. One thing most people do not grasp: if the tower collapse can be proven to have occured as is commonly thought, and there is a valid explanation for the anomolies, that would be just fine with this group because all they want is the truth to be made public - they have other and better things to do with their lives than study this full time. But their quandry is that the more they find out, the more evidence they uncover, all of it points to collapses caused by demolition rather than gravity.

I have to beg off answering any techinical questions as "how" because I am not the expert - I act more as a reporter trying to bring awareness that there are serious, scientifc doubts and active research still being done. After that, it is up to the individual to find his level of interest and concern.