Scientists find Active thermite residue in WTC dust

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Ok so wait a minute you don't think it warrants another investigation when there is plenty of evidence that the Bush Administration did not capture Osama when given the chance and killed investigations both of the Bin Laden family and also the FBI killed Colleen Rowley and other agents investigations of the actual hijackers prior to 9/11?

Please explain that.

I'd like to see evidence of a 9/11 cover-up. Not "Isn't this weird and doesn't it seem like the actions of people who WOULD do a 9/11 conspiracy?"

My argument is NOT a strawman

Your argument that conspiracies are possible and have happened before is a straw man. I've never said conspiracies are impossible.

I'm saying there are tons and tons of reasons why there should be another investigation. I am in no way saying I know what happened on 9/11 you however ARE.

Wrong again. I never said I know what happened. I said that I've yet to see any credible evidence of a government conspiracy to mastermind the 9/11 attacks. It's possible that there was a government conspiracy. I'm just unwilling to believe it without evidence.
 
I'd like to see evidence of a 9/11 cover-up. Not "Isn't this weird and doesn't it seem like the actions of people who WOULD do a 9/11 conspiracy?"



Your argument that conspiracies are possible and have happened before is a straw man. I've never said conspiracies are impossible.



Wrong again. I never said I know what happened. I said that I've yet to see any credible evidence of a government conspiracy to mastermind the 9/11 attacks. It's possible that there was a government conspiracy. I'm just unwilling to believe it without evidence.
And the lack of connection with Bin Laden on the FBI website? What about that?
 
And the lack of connection with Bin Laden on the FBI website? What about that?

I have no idea. That still qualifies under "Isn't this weird?" rather than direct evidence of the government actually taking a role in the attacks.

If you want to show that Person A committed a murder, you show evidence that the victim was killed by that person. Saying, "Person B may not have done it, anyway the police don't seem to care about Person B to me, besides Person A took a shower that night, which is exactly what a murderer would do! Please explain that."

How about showing evidence that Person A did it, rather that providing reasons why it's not impossible for Person A to have done it?
 
I have no idea. That still qualifies under "Isn't this weird?" rather than direct evidence of the government actually taking a role in the attacks.

If you want to show that Person A committed a murder, you show evidence that the victim was killed by that person. Saying, "Person B may not have done it, anyway the police don't seem to care about Person B to me, besides Person A took a shower that night, which is exactly what a murderer would do! Please explain that."

How about showing evidence that Person A did it, rather that providing reasons why it's not impossible for Person A to have done it?
Wait a minute. You are saying that the government has proven that Osama commited 9/11 aren't you? If so why wouldn't the FBI list that amongst his crimes like they do with the USS Cole which isn't even proven but is strongly suspected...

Seriously please explain this.

It's not weird man our top investigative agency isn't listing it as a crime they want him in connection with!

Let me give you a quote:

FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club on April 19, 2002, said: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot."

he goes on to explain how they tracked the suspects. It seems pretty amazing to me that they wouldn't put it on Osama's wanted for crimes. I mean isn't this the DEFINITIVE thing they want him for? Don't they have evidence for it?

And what about this?:

[video=youtube;VPZnjBWW3lg]"]

Look when the FBI and the VP both can't pin it on Bin Laden that doesn't leave you with many folks in the government claiming that OBL definitely did 9/11. Another investigation is warranted. Period.
 
Wait a minute. You are saying that the government has proven that Osama commited 9/11 aren't you? If so why wouldn't the FBI list that amongst his crimes like they do with the USS Cole which isn't even proven but is strongly suspected...

Seriously please explain this.

It's not weird man our top investigative agency isn't listing it as a crime they want him in connection with!

Let me give you a quote:



he goes on to explain how they tracked the suspects. It seems pretty amazing to me that they wouldn't put it on Osama's wanted for crimes. I mean isn't this the DEFINITIVE thing they want him for? Don't they have evidence for it?

And what about this?:



Look when the FBI and the VP both can't pin it on Bin Laden that doesn't leave you with many folks in the government claiming that OBL definitely did 9/11. Another investigation is warranted. Period.


Why don't you take all the time and effort you're using to try and convince us of a conspiracy and open up your own investigation!
 
Why don't you take all the time and effort you're using to try and convince us of a conspiracy and open up your own investigation!
Right because I really have Subpoena power. I'm sure I can get Cheney, Bush, Mueller and Tenet under oath for the first time (they were never under oath in the first "investigation").
 
No what I was saying proves that the potential is there e.g. operation Northwoods. I'm also saying that the theory the government provides requires a real suspension of disbelief see my response to ministrel above. I"m NOT I repeat NOT saying I know what happened on 9/11 I want to see a much MUCH more thorough investigation including UNDER OATH testimony from the ex-president and vice president. At the very least there was criminal negligence that day.

I don't have to suspend my disbelief in the slightest to believe the government.

I also don't think that we should get testimony from one additional person, EVER, related to this.

I'm quite convinced that terrorists hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings, and I'm also quite sure that no matter how much investigation is done some people will never believe that was the case because they are inclined to believe in conspiracies.

Ed O.
 
I don't have to suspend my disbelief in the slightest to believe the government.

I also don't think that we should get testimony from one additional person, EVER, related to this.

I'm quite convinced that terrorists hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings, and I'm also quite sure that no matter how much investigation is done some people will never believe that was the case because they are inclined to believe in conspiracies.

Ed O.
Ok, glad you know what happened that day. Interesting the FBI doesn't seem to agree.
 
Um so you don't think OBL did it and or you don't know who did it? And you also don't want another investigation is that right? Wow that leaves me speechless!

Your logic leaves a lot to be desired. Not believing that it has been proven that Al Qaeda did it does not imply:

1. That I don't believe Al Qaeda did it

1. That I have no opinion on who did it [I believe Al Qaeda did it and I think evidence has been provided; proof is a different and higher standard]

3. That the US government is likely to have done it

I want another investigation if there's good evidence that someone other than Al Qaeda did it. So far, that hasn't been provided. The FBI not listing the 9/11 attacks as a crime that Al Qaeda or bin Laden are wanted for is curious, but not evidence that someone else did it. As to why the FBI doesn't, it would be an interesting to ask them.
 
You beat me to it, maxiep.

While I don't claim to be an expert on anything being discussed in this thread, I think that some basic physics is being misunderstood here.

Ed O.

There's more to it than F = M x A.

There's the vertical supports which were damaged and gave way dropping the top 20 or so floors toward the earth.

Then there's the horizontal supports that hold up each floor. Those were certainly not capable of supporting 20 floors worth of debris in the interior of the building. If you strategically put 10 ton weights on the top floor, scattered about through the office space, the building would have collapsed the same way. That floor would have fallen to the one below. The floor below would have had all the weight it normally had (desks, walls, water coolers, etc.) plus the weight of that stuff from the floor above.

Ih this case, it was 20 floors worth of weight.

tlongII spelled it out perfectly:

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure. With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h. It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
 
BTW, the domino effect is pretty obvious using F = MA

"A" being 9.8m/sec/sec of gravity.

"M" being 45,000 tons (10 floors) plus an additional 4,500 tons (1 floor) for each floor below as it gave way.

"F" was thus ever increasing, each floor that got pancaked.
 
Your logic leaves a lot to be desired. Not believing that it has been proven that Al Qaeda did it does not imply:

1. That I don't believe Al Qaeda did it

1. That I have no opinion on who did it [I believe Al Qaeda did it and I think evidence has been provided; proof is a different and higher standard]

3. That the US government is likely to have done it

I want another investigation if there's good evidence that someone other than Al Qaeda did it. So far, that hasn't been provided. The FBI not listing the 9/11 attacks as a crime that Al Qaeda or bin Laden are wanted for is curious, but not evidence that someone else did it. As to why the FBI doesn't, it would be an interesting to ask them.



You don't think it should be proven then? I mean we went to war once arguably twice over this event. I have NOT said that the government did it. I don't know what happened that day. If after 7 years the government hasn't proven their case does that mean we just go ho hum? I had relatives go to war in a variety of wars including Vietnam. I have since found out that Vietnam was started by an event now known to be concocted as a pre-text to go to war in Vietnam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

In 2005, an official National Security Agency declassified report[3] revealed that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated
t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[4]


My Uncle has severe PTSD from Vietnam, lost hearing in his ear and is not the same man who left convinced the Vietnamese attacked us in an act of Aggression. 40 years later we now know it was a lie. I hope you feel that Vietnam was a mistake as it clearly was on so many levels. I'm convinced that we need to investigate 9/11 lest we be left with the legacy of another military invasion based on lies. In the case of 9/11 I'm also worried we are allowing the people who failed to prevent the attack to not be punished (Mueller, Tennet, heads of airforce and possibly NSA who all should have lost their jobs but most got more money and honors).

Both of my brothers wanted to sign up to go fight in Afghanistan and it took extensive talking to them by a variety of people to get them not to go. For years we have seen broken men return, if they returned at all from Afghanistan and Iraq. It matters quite alot whether or not this has been proven or not. If we are unable to prove that it was Hijackers alone that pierced our defenses then we have an awful lot of blood on our hands.

I thank god all the time that my brothers didn't go there and pray that our troops come home, which as of yet has not happened. This isn't something you can just say happened years ago this is something that we live with the consequences daily. I feel proof is a burden REQUIRED before 1,000's upon 1,000's of american men and women die not to mention the 100's of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civillians who die. I'm all for millitary action in certain cases, Rwanda, Sudan and possibly even Pakistan or North Korea. We know both of them have WMD's one of them is threatening to pre-emptively Nuke us. That is a far cry from an unproven conspiracy theory of guys with Box cutters!
 
You don't think it should be proven then?

I'm not sure whether it can be proven and how much money should be devoted to it. Criminal proceedings don't require proof either, because absolute proof is rarely possible.

It's not like I'm philosophically opposed to an investigation. I simply want reasonable evidence that one is warranted. No one seems capable of producing that, so I'm not currently in favour of one.
 
I'm not sure whether it can be proven and how much money should be devoted to it. Criminal proceedings don't require proof either, because absolute proof is rarely possible.

It's not like I'm philosophically opposed to an investigation. I simply want reasonable evidence that one is warranted. No one seems capable of producing that, so I'm not currently in favour of one.

Judging by how the private sector trivially debunks each point in these conspiracy theories, it'd be a massive waste of govt. money to pursue anything at this time.

I agree that if there were some reasonable evidence not considered to date, it'd be worth looking at.
 
Fire retardant materials were used in all three buildings. A steel reenforced concrete building falling due to fire? Have you ever heard of such a thing?

Falling to the basement level at near free fall speed?

I don't know that WTC7 fell at near free fall speed. I know numerous witnesses claimed the building was on fire every floor, they could hear it groaning, it was all bent out of shape, and the firefighters pulled out of there so they wouldn't be killed in the expected collapse.

Fire Retardant doesn't mean fireproof, FWIW.

Watch the one video where they asked 11 demolition companies if the word "pull" means anything to them?


Secondary explosions debunked:

[video=youtube;CRCTkSJOViY]
 
Here's another video, that I think clearly demonstrates that there was a series of EXPLOSIONS running down the all four sides of the building in a syncronized manner. Take a look at the corner of the building, which is still in tact, between the explosions running along the two visible faces. If it were being crushed, floor by floor, this would not be the case.

[video=youtube;atSd7mxgsGY]
 
Here's another video, that I think clearly demonstrates that there was a series of EXPLOSIONS running down the all four sides of the building in a syncronized manner. Take a look at the corner of the building, which is still in tact, between the explosions running along the two visible faces. If it were being crushed, floor by floor, this would not be the case.

Why not? Get a bag of flour and jump on it. What happens? Does the flour squirt out the sides?

barfo
 
Here's another video, that I think clearly demonstrates that there was a series of EXPLOSIONS running down the all four sides of the building in a syncronized manner. Take a look at the corner of the building, which is still in tact, between the explosions running along the two visible faces. If it were being crushed, floor by floor, this would not be the case.

I don't understand how you can say this with any authority. Like... I was going to highlight a part of your post that I wanted to ask you, "How do you KNOW this?" but it's the whole post.

It seems to me that you're just parroting what you hear, and grasping at things that support your conspiracy belief.

I look at that and it appears to me, as a non-engineer, that the air is being pushed out of floors below the floor that is being pancaked. The corners don't spit our smoke and gas because there are no windows there.

I don't see ANY evidence that there are explosions. The clouds of gas are synchronized, but I would find it exceedingly odd if they were not.

Ed O.
 
I'm not sure whether it can be proven and how much money should be devoted to it. Criminal proceedings don't require proof either, because absolute proof is rarely possible.

It's not like I'm philosophically opposed to an investigation. I simply want reasonable evidence that one is warranted. No one seems capable of producing that, so I'm not currently in favour of one.
Here's one theory I have that wouldn't necessarily require government collusion but it is something I've wondered about. OBL and 19 of the hijackers are Saudi. What if Saudi Arabian intelligence set this up knowing we would pin it on OBL and also suspecting that we would use it as a pre-text to invade Iraq and get rid of their enemy Sadam. We get rid of two Saudi enemies and they become the regional power. The Saudi's and indeed the world knew that the Bush Admin was itching to attack Iraq (Cheney et al had beaten the drums of war the previous spring and even Colin Powell didn't want to go there) they send in there guys and pin it on the black sheep of the family. Maybe Cheney didn't allow it to go through but maybe like Johnson he didn't want to look to closely into other theories. We know Rumsfeld was all about tying it to Iraq and Cheney too. There you go an alternate explanation that doesn't require the government to be in on it but involves an intelligence agency (the Saudi's). Now see this theory (mind you they are all theories) makes INFINITELY more sense then a few non-state supported guys beating our intel apparatus. This is why I believe we need another investigation because frankly the mainstream theory doesn't pass the smell test. They must have had, imho, additional support that only a government could provide (in this illustration and also an idea I have kicked around) the Saudi's. I've never understood why when 19 of 20 hijackers were Saudi we attacked Afghanistan especially if we aren't absolutely certain it was Bin Laden. Considering that people immediately assumed it was Bin Laden (most networks were reporting this within hours) and ran with that it is entirely possible we went after the wrong Saudi.

By the way I respect you opinion and apologize for getting heated. I get frustrated at times because this is an emotionally charged issue as i'm worried the US may end up on the wrong side of history on this one (we're talking 40 years in the future when info is declassified) and I feel we may have let the real criminals get away. I also have always been angry that no one was punished for the gross intelligence/military failure of that day that cost so many lives and I was outraged that most of the top people in those positions were instead rewarded for incompetence.
 
There you go an alternate explanation that doesn't require the government to be in on it but involves an intelligence agency (the Saudi's). Now see this theory (mind you they are all theories) makes INFINITELY more sense then a few non-state supported guys beating our intel apparatus. This is why I believe we need another investigation because frankly the mainstream theory doesn't pass the smell test. They must have had, imho, additional support that only a government could provide (in this illustration and also an idea I have kicked around) the Saudi's.

I certainly can't rule out the possibility that the Saudis helped, but I don't see the need for the additional support. It isn't like they infiltrated the CIA and stole the President's briefing book, or even wore clever disguises. Everything they did was right out in plain sight and they only succeeded because our own intelligence agencies just weren't very intelligent. They didn't beat us so much as walked past us while we were drooling on our shirts.

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top