Redstate

A man who knows absolutely nothing about "controlled demolition" other than what he has seen on CNN; a man who knows absolutely nothing about structural engineering; a man who knows nothing about the effects of 100,000 gallons of burning kerosene in a confined space; a man who passes for a "prominent credible whistleblower" in the leftist world.

Amazing, but not surprising.

Yeah, Sheen joins a long list of crazy liberals who are all know nothing actors.

Oh, wait. There are more educated folks who think the same thing? And not all of them are liberals?

How can that be?

* * * * *

By John Daly

UPI International Correspondent

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI)

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

Full Story:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

* * * * *

Former CIA Agent, Author, John Perkins, Questions 9/11

I don't know anything about 9/11 really and what really happened there, but I'm amazed by the lack of true investigation that seems to have gone into that. It just appalls me because it really, coming where I come from, it's extremely difficult for me to believe that that whole thing was masterminded by a man living in a cave with a walkie talkie. But I don't know.

Full story:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060122125115945

* * * * *

Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

The physics of 9/11 -- including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell -- prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes -- which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.

Full Story:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

* * * * *

What Caused Those Spikes Before the Towers Fell?

Unaccounted Seismic 'Spikes' Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not yet been explained. While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower.

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

"Sharp spikes of short duration," according to Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz, adding that such spikes had the attributes of underground nuclear explosion(s). "The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall."

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research said, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

Full story (with evidence supporting the official story)

http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20050729/headline3.html

* * * * * * * * * *

A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped back into the political spotlight earlier this year, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and asserted: "if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now?"

Paul Craig Roberts, listed by Who's Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, has evolved over the years into a major Bush basher and neo con critic. Roberts said he hasn't changed his political ideology or jumped from the Republican-conservative ship but "just can't respect a party leadership who doesn't respect the truth."

Even with his impressive background, Roberts, once a former columnist for Business Week and a thorn in the side of liberals back then, said "the times have drastically changed," adding his views are no longer welcome in the mainstream media if they are critical of Bush or any of his policies.

Roberts said the recent statements made by Reynolds, however, reveal just how "flimsy and unbelievable" the government story comes across.

"This is not some kind of conspiracy nut or kook talking. He is a man with extremely qualified credentials, whose opinions I respect," said Roberts referring to Reynolds' comments, which have been highly publicized across the country.

Full Story:

http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20050729/headline3.html

to think out of the box!  Bravo Peter Griffin!

Believe it or not, there was a book to the same effect, which was a best-seller in France during the summer of 2002, which was called "No Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11". Of course, it defies the imagination of how anybody could pull off a "fake" 9/11 attack.

In such a hypothesis, the conspirators would have to set off a huge bomb in each of the WTC towers (without them being noticed by workers at 9 AM), another in the Pentagon (one of the strongest buildings in the world), and create some false plane wreckage in Shanksville, PA. Then hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of New Yorkers outdoors on a sunny summer morning need to be told to tell reporters that they saw planes crash into the WTC when they really didn't, and hope that they all tell the same "lie".

Then, the hundreds of passangers supposedly on the four planes have to disappear off the face of the earth, and all their families and friends have to keep the secret that they are really alive but assumed dead. Among them was Barbara Olsen, a rising conservative commentator and wife of then-Solicitor General Ted Olsen. I could just imagine the conversation, President Bush asking Ted Olsen: "Gee, Ted, I really need a media coup to bolster my popularity--would you mind sacrificing your wife in a plane crash?" And to Donald Rumsfeld, "Hey, Don, would you mind sitting in the Pentagon while we blow up the south face?"

Yeah, right. It wasn't planes that knocked down the WTC, it was flying pigs.

Earth to Charles Sheen: 9/11 really did happen. Ask the families of those who died in the WTC and the Pentagon, and the four planes.

He will be apprehended and put back in his box, with stronger tape to keep the flaps shut. ;)

The tinfoil hat wing of the Internet makes itself known here again.

Let's examine your evidence:

1. We have an economist who thinks it was controlled demolition. Is he related to the demolition expert hat thinks the Fed has gone too far in raising interest rates? Oh, some other guy I guess.
   
2. A former CIA agent who knows nothing about 9/11 really and what really happened there but is appalled at the lack of investigation but doesn't think a guy living in a cave could have pulled it off.
   
3. A BYU professor who thinks "prepositioned explosives" were used and timed to go off when the airplanes, a diversion by the way, hit the buildings. And he goes into lengthy detail about how the "prepositioned explosives" were planed in the building without anyone knowing it. Similar to the plan to send a man to the Sun --- but he's going at night so he won't get burned up I guess.
   
4. Some unexplained seismic "spikes" just before the rubble hit the ground. Couldn't possibly be due to the impact of the upper floors pancaking onto the standing structure now could they. No I guess not because the lower parts of the building had somehow coincidently jumped up off the ground and were floating in thin air when that happened thus preventing those impacts from tranmitting to the ground.
   
5. A former Treasury Department official and a man who used to write for Business Week and who is listed in Who's Who (you can be too if you pay the fee by the way.) He fully supports the guy in reference number (1) above.

None of the structural engineers who examined the collapse, none of the guys at the National Institutes of Standards and Technology who examined the collapse, none of the thousands of actual engineers and scientists who have researched the collapse know what they are talking about. But some former Labor Department economist thinks it looks 'fishy' and you are quoting him?

Are you even remotely familiar with Occam's Razor? And no it isn't that new Gillette thingy.

all those passengers and crew are being held in an underground facility at Area 51. They are kept in the same facility with the crew of the Navy cruiser that fired the missile that brought down TWA Flight 800.

Buy it now. Buy lots of it.

While you're at it, get those fillings extracted. The thought-control beams bypass the lining in your homberg if you have fillings. They also have mercury so you might want to pull them as a prophylaxis against mental retardation.

your answer was way better than mine :-)

I just really noticed you username "ufojoe." I could have saved a bit of typing if I'd really paid attention that that first.

during the Philadelphia Experiment to cloak that navy cruiser.  I pity those poor sailors that were fused to the deck during the intradimensional shift, but their sacrifice was not in vain.

Impeach Bush now!!!

All this is a rehash of early "Blame Bush"(tm),"Bush Knew"(tm)"9/11 was a neo-conservative plot to control American and take us to war"(tm)Moonbattieness.

So considering the above,let us recap,

"Bush stole the 2000 election"

"Bush planned 9/11"

"Afgahnistan is a quagmire"

"Bush Lied,people died"

"Bush=Hitler"

"Corrupt Administration"

"Bush's quagmire in Iraq"

"Bush broke the Law re: NSA WTP"

"Dangerously Incompetent"

"Bush was responsible for the disappearence of Judge Crater"

"Bush was the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas"

Have I forgotten anything???

Actor Charlie Sheen has said on a left wing radio interview

Actually, the radio show he was on is NOT a left-wing radio show.

The host of the show believes strongly in the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, closing the borders, small government, etc.  He was behind impeaching Clinton and helped expose Janet Reno and the Waco disaster.

When someone disagrees with you, don't be so quick to label them as enemies or use labels such as right vs left.  Be concerned with the truth, honesty, decency, freedom, and not so concerned about being right that it blinds judgement and results in each "team" standing in front of their respective politicians defending their actions and name-calling the other "team".  This ultimately turns people against each other in a boisterous din that results in no accountability whatsoever.

Cool it with the the Judge Crater and grassy knoll business. That's not supposed to get out. If you do it again you will find yourself at the place in Area 51 with the 9/11 passengers and cres and the rest of them. :-)

I call them as I see them.

The nuts who are pushing his 9/11 crap are liberals and they are insane. I could care less what calling a liberal a lib does to them or the country. I aim on helping the sane people of the United States take back the country from you loons. We are working on the courts, then the universities come next. Time for all you 1960's style unwashed lefties to go away and let the adults run the country for a generation.

MTI

always amazes me the the left doesn't allow the truth to get in the way of what they believe.

You seem to have completely misundertood.

You are obviously stuck on dividing the world into liberal and conservative.  I questioned something you believe in and I am automatically a liberal loon.

I consider myself a conservative- its almost laughable how far off the mark you are with your label-spewing.

I agree many so-called liberals are insane and ruining the country through socialistic, marxist programs and propaganda.  

But don't be blind to freedoms you're losing from the so-called conservative leaders.

You should stop playing sides and start worrying about freedom.  Real freedom.  Be it economic, social, educational, propety-rights, consumer, privacy, etc.  Because right now you're enabling the devices of your own demise that if enacted and supported by a liberal president, you would be all up in arms.  Be up in arms!

both left and right suffer from this malady.  

The 'left' are generally afflicted to a higher degree, but the 'right' are not immune by any stretch of the imagination.

Charlie Sheen, noted aviation expert, observes in a wide shot on television that the plane which hit the south tower didn't look like anything he'd ever flown on.

The second plane hit just before 9am local time, when Battery Park and lower Broadway were full of people walking to work. Two of them worked for me and still do. Both of them (one coming off the SI Ferry and the other walking from Battery Park City) remember looking away from the burning North Tower toward the south, across the harbor, noticing the approaching second plane, and saying to themselves: "gee, that plane is flying awfully low."

Earth to Charlie Sheen: it was an airliner, the kind you've flown on many times. There's no conspiracy.

I wish it was appropriate to put in some Repo Man quotes. Then I realized it was Emilio Estevez, not Charlie Sheen. Drat.

Please, please tell me it's satire!

They look a lot different from the inside. Since thats the only perspective he usually has on commercial airplanes, it's understandable he wouldn't recognize them!

At this point, not even the United States government asserts a pancaking floors model for the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. Consequently, no one can assume that pancaking floors can account for the tons of concrete dust and the tons of broken structural steel observed on 9/11.

At this point, the United States government agrees that both WTC 1 and 2 suffer nearly complete structural failure in a time of no more than 8 seconds. This structural failure results in the observed free-fall collapses.

The United States government has at its disposal NASA. The United States government has additional legions of physicists, mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists in numerous other departments, agencies, and institutions. Surely after all these years the United States government has produced a published, peer-reviewed model of these collapses? The answer is no.

At this time, the United States government asserts it has produced a computer model that given the airliner crashes and the subsequent fires WTC 1 and 2 could reach the point of collapse. However, the physical principles this computer model is based on have never been published in a peer-reviewed form. This computer model gives no explanation of the observed free fall collapses.

One scientist has suggested such an explanation in a peer-reviewed paper that has been accepted for publication. The scientist who has produced this paper is Dr. Steve Jones of the Physics Department, Brigham Young University.

Following Dr. Jones' logic, consider this statement of the scientific principle of Occam's Razor: "In the absence of any other reasonable explanation, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." The simplest explanation for the observed collapses of WTC 1 and 2 is controlled demolition. As many commented on 9/11 the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 appeared exactly like the controlled demolitions of numerous buildings seen over the years on television newscasts.

Anyone who doubts the analysis provided here is certainly welcome to produce a published, peer-reviewed paper detailing an alternative explanation. They would certainly receive the profound gratitude of President George W. Bush of the United States and Vice President Richard Cheney of the United States. They would certainly be nominated for a Noble Prize in Physics.

We got two new posters just to comment on this!

1. Did President Bush learn his demolition expertise in the National Guard?
   
2. How did the administration transport those same explosives to the levees in New Orleans?  It was Rove, wasn't it?
   
3. How was your trip to Roswell?

Be careful...they are watching you.

find this cr*p? Or do you folks make it up while your tinfoil hats are out for repair?

This is Looney Toones stuff. You guys are $#%$#%$# nuts.

There are plenty of people who actually believe this nonsense. Which only goes to prove that if we need anything in this country it's more institutions to care for them.

The amazing thing is that form outward appearance they appear to be completely normal people.

It occurs to me that in some parts of the country there must be enough tinfoil hats to be causing a local disturbance in the Earth's magnetic field and disrupting TV and radio transmissions.

The good thing is that in most of these places with high tinfoil hat concentrations the traffic is so bad that the hats can't be moving very fast, otherwise they would be generating high voltages as they move through the magnetic field; people could get hurt.

Fulminating does not help your case at all. Refute the argument. If you cannot refute the argument you clearly accept it.

Anyone who has taken high school physics knows the argument cannot be refuted.

if his mother was Mother Teresa's closest friend. It's still nuts as is anyone who believes that he knows what he's talking about.

The fundamental, insurmountable problem with the official 9/11 story is simple physics. The buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC) fell too fast. These buildings fell at approximately free-fall speed. If a grand piano were dropped from the top of either of WTC 1 or 2, the twin towers, at the moment their collapses begin it would reach the ground at the same time as debris from the top of the towers. The time of collapse of either of the twin towers as stated by the United States government's 9/11 Commission is approximately 10 seconds.

The basic physics equation for an object falling from rest near the ground with no air resistance is h = ½*g*t squared. In this equation h is the height above the ground at which the object is released, g is the acceleration of the object due to gravity, and t is the time it would take the object to reach the ground. WTC 2, the tower that fell first, had a height of 1,362 feet. Plug h = 1,362 feet, g = 32.2 feet/second squared and solve for t. After some simple algebra t is determined to be 9.20 seconds. Sir Isaac Newton and the 9/11 Commission would agree that WTC 2 collapsed at close to free-fall speeds. Plug in the 1,368 feet height of WTC 1 into the equation and repeat to get the result of 9.22 seconds.

At this time, most people believe that the floors of WTC 1 and 2 pancaked successively upon each other. In a general hand-waving manner, this would seem to account for the terrible devastation observed as the towers collapse. For example, the tons of reinforced concrete pulverized into dust and the tons of structural steel broken almost uniformly into pieces small enough to be loaded into transport trucks. Initially, the United States government put forward the mechanism of the floors pancaking to explain the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2.

Consider a very simple pancaking model of WTC 2. In this model, the top of WTC 2 falls a tenth of the way down the tower in free-fall with no air resistance. At that point the top level encounters a second level. The second level instantly begins to fall from rest a further tenth of the way down the tower in free-fall with no air resistance and encounters a third level. This process continues through a total of ten levels. This simple pancaking model can be described mathematically in a straightforward manner.

Once again the basic physics equation for an object falling from rest near the ground with no air resistance is employed: h = ½*g*t squared. In this case we take the height to be a tenth of the total height of WTC 2. That is plug in h = 136.2 feet, g = 32.2 feet/second2 and solve for t. In this case the result is t = 2.909 seconds. To account for the ten levels this result is multiplied by ten. This very simple pancaking model of the collapse of WTC 2 results in a total time of 29.09 seconds for the fall of the entire structure.

Obviously, many hard physical realities are ignored in this model. However, the introduction of factors such as the structural integrity of WTC 2 between the levels and inertia would only serve to increase the total time of collapse. In addition, adding such factors would require concepts of physics, calculus, computer modelling and mechanical engineering that are beyond the scope of this article. Similar results are obtained for WTC 1. The total time of fall of this model greatly exceeds the observed time of collapse of either WTC 1 or 2.

Thanks, Bill Nye, for the scientific insight into dementia.  

P.S. - the explosives are a dead end.  Karl Rove used his bifocal lenses to re-direct laser beams from the planet Zircon into the WTC towers.  

Actually I am really hoping you do. I've got tons more material ready to go. C'mon gwb is depending on you.

how much pseudo-math and pseudo-physics you apply to this, it is still nuts.

Two fully loaded 767s (350,000 +/- pounds each), each with about 20-25,000 gallons of Jet-A (kerosene) on board crashed into the buildings. The ensuing fire weakened the steel structure, allowing the crosstie beams to sag and causing critical joints to fail. The failing steel was unable to support the structure above the impact point and collapsed. At that point the floors immediately below the crash were unable to withstand the sudden impact load of 30 floors of the building suddenly landing on them and they collapsed. The ensuing cascade failures brought the entire structures down.

One tower lasted longer than the other because the impact point was higher. As a result it took longer for the impacted floors to fail under the load but ultimately they did. At that point the initial pancake and cascade failure is the same as the earlier tower failure.

The design of the towers and the choices made in fireproofing contributed to the failure. Due to environmental rules, the fireproofing was changed from asbestos (at about the 80th floor as I recall) in Tower 1 and asbestos was not used at all in Tower 2. The revised fireproofing was unable to adequately protect the structure from the temperature. In the case of Tower 1 the aircraft crashed into the building above the changover line.

It appeared similar to the controlled demolitions people see on TV because of the design of the buildings. The structure was essentially a steel core in the middle with a lightweight steel structure on the outside sand a lattice of lightweight steel crossties at each floor and glass panels between every outside vertical member. When the joints failed the floors collapsed the air was compressed and explodes out through the vertical members pushing out glass, dirt, debris, dust, paper, etc., giving the appearance of explosions at each floor; when in fact the floor was already collapsing.

The bottom line of this is that a bunch of guys hijacked two 767s and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The resulting fire caused the steel to weaken and the buildings collapsed. Preplanted explosives were not necessary, the buildings were gigantic repositories of energy waiting to be released by the right structural failure.

Any other "explanation" is simply unnecessary (Occam's Razor) and is simply nuts.

-------------------

---------------

from the walNUT tree did he ? Some day scientists will discover the screwy leftist gene that causes irrational emoters to shoot off at the mouth before thinking.

The weight of the aircraft is essentially immaterial in this situation, the mass of the airframe probably caused minimal damage; its the fuel that started the process. A smaller aircraft might not have enough fuel to sustain the fire long enough for the internal structural damage. For example a 757 has a max takeoff weight of 255,000 pounds and "only" carries about 12,000 gallons of fuel, half of the 767 max fuel load. Had the hijackers chosen 757 or smaller aircraft, I think there is a non-zero probability that the buildings would not have collapsed.

"professors", confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grow up to be liberals; us conservatives started out life as whiny, dependant children. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Arti
cle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142722231554&call_pageid=970599119419

There you have it: Irrefutable evidence!

appeared exactly like the controlled demolitions of numerous buildings seen over the years on television newscasts.

If it appeared exactly like what you've seen on TV, it MUST be true!  Ever watch David Copperfield?

We are completely surrounded by KOOKS and IDIOTS today!

It's a conspiracy to stiffle any real and meaningful debate on this blog by inundating us with KOOKDUM! They're trying to drive us all away!

that the "comrades" at UC Berkley got it bass- ackwards ? I heard about 25 minutes of Rush Limbaugh today and he highlighted this silly study. Thanks for the links jsteele.

You're taking issue with the "pancake" model of successively collapsing floors, because each floor has to start falling from zero velocity at the instant it gets struck from above? And so the total acceleration time of each floor has to be considered? Aren't you assuming that the entire mass of the upper stories impinging on any given floor has to come to complete rest so that the floor being struck can start from zero? Where is all that energy going?

this week?  We are getting SPAMMED! TROLL SPAM!!

now that you mention it there do seem to be a large number.

RedState gets a mention in the MSM and the next thing you know.....

THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD!

The notion that some small number of people orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as a hoax requires that they also were able to cover it up afterwards.

1. How did they cover it up?
   
2. Who flew the planes?

I'll hang up and listen for your response.

that covered up the shooting down of TWA 800. You remember that one where the Navy guided missile cruiser fired a Standard A/G missile at the flight. The one where the ship has never been identified; the one where no member of the crew has ever come forward to complain about being involved in mass murder; the one where a multi-million dollar piece of ordnance does not have to be accounted for; yeah, that one.

They are all being held incommunicado at Area 51 --- along with the ship by the way, which was disassembled into bite sized pieces and moved piece by piece from Norfolk to Area 51 by UPS. Never underestimate the ability of the Rovians and their allies.

just a little :) for my buddy GC!!

Just point me to an analysis in a published peer review journal that details your theory. A little more meat and calculation and you'll be well on your way to a nomination for a Nobel Prize in Physics. BTW algebra and Sir Issac Newton are not pseudo-science.

While he's doing that, I wonder if I could get you to build an econometric model of New Zealand. You might win a Nobel Prize for that as well, and besides we need it to figure out about the sheep.

experts among us to speak of such things without having to cite our favorite studies/opinions/papers that support our point of view.

The best paper that I read that for the life of me I cannot find but was originally on www.projectcensored.org (don't flame the site, I know)  but it was a student who did his doctoral thesis one the destruction of the WTC.  It had to do with the winds of the day, and the size of the cloud of dust and smoke that was created when all of the buildings fell.  His conclusion that there was not likely that the buildings could have created a size dust/smoke cloud that it did simply from falling.  It was his conclusion there had to have been something more to the destruction of the buildings than what was apparent from television but that there was no way to know at this point because the debris was cleaned up immediately instead of allowing investigators to do their thing before cleanup started.

Probably the only study/paper that has credibility to me, but of course I'd like to be able to link to the paper so anyone else could read it.  It wasn't a uber conspiracy there are bombs everywhere paper, but a "there's something we don't know and never will know" paper.

Refute the argument.

This is not the Art Bell blog. Take the conspiracy kookery somewhere else. This is not a suggestion.

Personally, I believe the 911 was just the utter incompetence of the government, along with other fiascos such as Katrina and of course the bungling of Iraq.  What else do you expect from your government?  However, there is always the possibility of a conspiracy, because consider this - if they hadn't hit the towers, we would not be in Iraq right now.

Anyway, this guy is a former agent in the Special Forces, so while he's a bit over the top, he does know what he's talking about (unlike probably 99% of the people on this list, no offense).  

http://www.bogritz.com/lookingglass.html

neither of us is going to convince the other so you go right on believing this conspiracy nonsense if you choose. Me, I'm going with the least complex solution: a bunch of guys hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. In the process they killed 3000 people, mostly my fellow citizens. For that they and anyone that supports them have forfeited any reticence I have about eliminating them.

I do not have any patience for nutcases that insist that the 'evil ones' in Washington consipred to kill Americans and to cover it up. It's nuts and we are going to have to part company; I'm going back to the world of sanity, you guys scare me.

faithful gamecock, crush on. And damn'd be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!"

My dear paxdium: I am a professional engineer, and you have demonstrated no knowledge of structural engineering beyond the first three weeks of Physics 101.

My colleague blackhedd correctly threw the B.S. flag on your crackpotitude.

According to your calculations, how much C4 would be required to bring down just one tower? Times two, then you've gotta account for WTC #7... How many technicians to plant the explosives? When the experts implode a building on purpose, they always expose & place charges on the key structural members... the 50,000 workers didn't notice?

It is my professional opinion, that you, sir, are a nitwit. Consider your theory peer-reviewed.

The 47 massive steel vertical columns in each of the Twin Towers were severed simultaneously, as verified by this structural engineer:

http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html

WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane. Why did it collapse? Watch this video clip from CBS News:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc-7_cbs_demolition.mpg

There are many EXPERTS speaking up:

Twenty-Year Physics Professor from BYU:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones

Mechanical Engineering Professor from Clemson:

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/mechanical-engineering-professor-from.htm
l

Former Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Executive (fired for speaking up):

http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/RyanK_PostingVersion.htm

http://news.wfhb.org/mp3/DLN20060316.mp3

Medical Doctor / Former MIT Research Engineer:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

http://mypetgoat.tv/content/view/37/1

Christian Theologian / Professor of Emeritus:

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/index.html

The five people about are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

http://st911.org and are petitioning Congress for the release of evidence:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172

The official government reports were shams:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html

The articles in Popular Mechanics and Scientific American were filled with red herrings and strawmen specifically designed to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/index.html

9/11 Truth Coverage in New York's "Village Voice" Magazine:

http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.html

9/11 Truth Coverage in "New York Magazine":

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html

More info:

9/11 WTC 'Controlled Demolition Theory' Analysis Thread

http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

200+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' Found in the Mainstream Media

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

Be part of Citizens Counter-Coup, The Formula For Change Now

http://3c.911truth.org

Were this Wikipedia, this would be called linkspamming and you would be reverted and solemnly warned not to do so again.

This isn't Wikipedia. An administrator will be with you shortly.

did I post too many links at once?

...every single joule of the energy that it originally took to lift millions of tons of steel, concrete and glass into the sky when they were built. That's plenty of energy to create 55-mph winds (through the compressed canyons of lower Manhattan), kick up enough dust to completely cover the southern tip of the island (where my office full of people turned momentarily black as night), and deposit enough energy into the holes to keep scrap metal molten for weeks afterwards.

There were no bombs or demolition devices. This whole conversation is absurd.

Rabid insanity is a per se bannable offense.

Won't you guys please go away and stop cluttering this place up with nutball conspiracy nonsense? Please, take this stuff back to the 9/11 conspiracy sites and leave the grown ups alone.

I assume you've been blammed by now, but hey, you asked politely.

1. Long lists of links with minimal discussion are not the greatest way to present any subject here, although not blammable on that alone.
   
2. This is not the forum for a long discussion of how the WTC was sabotaged by the Trilateral Commission and the Nabisco Corporation. Nor is it the place to discuss about whether conservatives are evil or just dumb, what people ate for breakfast this morning, whether the Moon landings were faked, or the existence of Sasquatch. You may feel miffed at your beloved topic being placed in such a category. Life, alas, is not fair.

At the funny farm?

I was looking forward to thermodynamics. However let me summarize:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;...

Your "model," to grace it with that term, assumes that the tower "pancaked" by tenths, which is an arbitrary number. If we assume it fell by twentieths instead, which seems no less absurd, we get 41 seconds instead of 29. If you knew anything about science, let alone physics, the fact that you could vary the time of fall ad libitum with an arbitrary parameter would have told you something.

The problem, of course, with your "explanation" is that it assumes the entire kinetic energy of each segment is instantaneously absorbed by the supporting structure, which simultaneously failed — but the segment comes to a complete stop as it does so. Your serious presentation of such a gross absurdity does not exactly enhance your claim to know structural engineering from Shinola. (Which, for the record, is a shoe polish.)

Go ahead and a Nobel prize awaits you. Of course they don't give Nobel prizes for structural engineering.

Once again you are reduced to hand waving. Publish.

We are awaiting with baited breath.

Nabisco? Say it isn't so! Not Nabisco.

That was the whole point of advancing the argument.

SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11

They claim government's account violates laws of physics and engineering

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) 27 January  2006 -- An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.

The society includes U.S. and international faculty and students of history, science, military affairs, psychology, and even philosophy. According to its spokesmen, S9/11T represents a concerted effort to uphold the standards of truth and justice and to strengthen democracy in this nation, which has taken a terrible hit in the aftermath of 9/11, when "everything changed." Its function is to bring scientific rigor to the study of 9/11 phenomena.

The members of this group are dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11, "letting the chips fall where they may." The evidence has become sufficiently strong that they are speaking out. They are actively devoting themselves to reporting the results of their research to the public by means of lectures, articles, and other venues.

The society includes numerous notable professors and scholars, including:

Morgan Reynolds, Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis

Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum

Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions

Lloyd DeMause, Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory

James H. Fetzer, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20 books and co-chair of S9/11T

Andreas Von Buelow, former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years

These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.

The society was founded by Professors Fetzer and Jones, who serve as its co-chairs.  Fetzer, a philosopher of science, observed that the government's "official account" is not even physically possible, because it violates laws of nature. "What we have been told is fine," he said, "if you are willing to believe impossible things."

The society is encouraging its members to vigorously express their concerns on this score through lectures, conferences, symposia, articles, and books as well as other access routes that publicize their findings.  

Studies by the society's founders and by prominent theologian David Ray Griffin, who has taken a leading role in exposing false claims about 9/11, are accessible from the association's home page, www.st911.org .

1.  The first presentation to watch is David Ray Griffin's lecture, which was orignally broadcasted on C-SPAN in April 2005.  The running time is less than 85 minutes.  It is a good introduction to help people understand the basics about the suppressed facts of 9/11.  It can be seen at www.st911.org at the top left under "A Good Place To Start"
   
2.  If you have watched that, and you want to learn more, I recommend next watching "9/11 Revisited" on the Internet.  This presentation focuses on issues surrounding the collapse of the WTC buildings.  Here are the simple instructions for watching that video.  

Simply copy this into your browser.

Select the URL below, edit copy

Go to browser, edit paste

Return and it will run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU

3.  After that, try watching Loose Change at www.st911.org

For those who only know the official story told on TV, I guarantee you will learn a lot of facts you never knew before because they have been suppressed by the mainstream media.  

...argument was just sarcasm, all I can tell you is that written humor is one of the hardest literary genres there is. Racine you ain't.

The whole miasma of 9/11 imagery has been suppressed by the MSM and their counterparts in the image and filmmaking communities. Any schoolkid can instantly recognize photos and films of the USS Arizona or W. Virginia. The images of Pearl Harbor have been permanently burned into our cultural memory from countless retellings and reshowings. But the people who make our art and media are bound and determined to flush 9/11 down the memory hole. And why? That's easy: to undermine the rationale for the Global War on Terror.

There's no need for anyone to start constructing grassy-knoll theories about the fall of the towers. Good old forgetfulness is doing the trick nicely. Out of sight, out of mind.

I live in a neighborhood that lost 140 firemen that day. That's a pretty big change. And I have close friends who still shake at night, nearly five years later. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm surprised (as well as nettled) that our country is trying to forget 9/11 ever happened.

Bad math, bad physics, bad logic, bad ties to reality.

Have fun. I don't think even the Kossacks are this crazy, so I wish you well at LewRockwell and wherever fine luggage is sold.

Cespinar gladly kicks you out the door. Oh, yes!

You been eating minnows?

The term is bated breath.

Showing that your ignorance extends beyond physics.

Thomas already shiv'd him.  Then sent his IP to our corporate neo-Zionist globalist masters.

Maybe he was the "brother" referred to above.

to redeploy the ship to the Bermuda Triangle? Then they could just let the ship just vanish, and let the aliens worry about holding the crew.

of being up at arms over defending freedoms of all type.

I'm going to start by defending our right to be free from crackpots.

"If you cannot refute the arguement you clearly accept it"

That is just about the dumbest debate statement I have ever heard.  I am not forced to accept a statement simply because I choose not to refute it.

If that were true, then I submit that if I can refute your arguement by any means, your point is "clearly" wrong.

<sigh>

...and would be admitted as such in any court in the land. On certain subjects:

1. Human sexual response/deviant sexual behavior
   
   
2. Recreational use of ED medication
   
   
3. Cosmetic surgery
   
   
4. Non-medicinal uses of the extract of the coca plant
   
   
5. Non-medicinal uses of cannibis
   
   
6. How to conduct an intervention
   
   
7. Multiple addiction
   
   
8. Heidi Fleiss's Home for Wayward Nymphomaniacs
   
   
9. D movies
   
   
10. XXX movies

Sorry, aircraft identification and structural engineering aren't on the list. Why in the world his opinion is newsworthy is beyond me, and it's a sad comment on the current state of journalism.

is made out of split pea soup.  What, you don't agree?  Come'on refute the argument - point me to an analysis in a published peer review journal that details your theory...

Yep, let's get the entire nationwide community of high school physics teachers engaged in disproving paranoid conspiracy theories that are easily disproven by anyone with a grasp of reality and the obvious.

Somewhere there's a squirrel missing it's nut.

but no where near as satisfying for the conspiracy crowd.

Just picture a fleet of unmarked UPS trucks rushing across the country carrying little brown packages, each of which contains a 2 pound chunk of a Navy cruiser. A conspiritorialist's dream come true.

ok; so let's look at the facts: objective, measurable, and independently verifiable. Over 100 university professors, physicists, and scientists have proven through immutable laws of science that our government's story is false. Check these two sites to review the science:

www.scholarsfor911truth.org

http://www.physics911.net/index.htm

As a conservative, I'm embarrassed by George Bush and his "debt and spend" neo-con/neo-fascists, and believe it's my patriotic duty to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I'm happy to help restore the good name of conservatives by demanding a factual examination of 9-11. I've now spent over 200 hours reviewing the research of 9-11. Prominent conservatives who support the idea that 9-11 was an inside job:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28070

I reccommend getting the free dvd from this site:

https://secure.reopen911.org/freedvd.php

order and watch. Don't pontificate with national security; get the facts straight first.

Really need to run on this in 2008. This and the levees in NOLA that GW personally set the explosives on (while cackling manically in his Snidley Whiplash outfit).

Blam you already? Are you back under a different name? Don't tell me there's more than one of you allowed on the Internet at the same time without an attendant?

...I'm embarrassed by the asylum-bound conspiracy nuts who have ruined my proud party.  I am immediately re-registering as a Republican.

Okay, I'm not a Democrat, but this moby thing looks like so much fun I thought I'd give it a try myself.

I think a bit more practice and you'll have it down :-)

Haven't you watched any of the shows about how they implode buildings? It takes weeks of preparation. Besides, you should be a lot more concerned with the monster under your bed. That's what is going to get you. Maybe tonight!

Whenever I go to these "conservative" blogs on 9/11 related material the response is always the same: "you love Hillary you tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy nut moonbats!"  Grow up.  Can you even fathom that King George might have LIED?  No, can't be.  All the American and Arabs dying in the middle east are because of crazy liberals who hate America.  Please.  Will some of you brain-washed, left/right paradigm totin' folk step up with a real argument?  

Tell us how those towers and WTC 7 came down at freefall speed on their own footprints, why there was molten steel at ground zero for months post-attack (jet fuel and sofas don't come CLOSE to burning hot enough for that!), why there were five war games going on that very morning--some of which involved simulating hijacked aircraft and the insertion of false blips on radar screens, why the formation of a 9/11 commission was totally stone-walled for more than a year...and believe me, we can go on and on about the coincidences and oddities on 9/11.  The real kooks are those who can't look at the evidence and be willing to change their minds.

http://www.tyrannyalert.com/800.html

It's someone espousing this conspiracy theory telling any human being (including my 5 year old son) to grow up.

First off let me tell you that I am not in any way shape or form a liberal. I have voted for Bush now in both of his elections and come from a Rep. background. Now I have been reading your comments about how ignorant Charlie Sheen is about his accusations on the 911 attacks and I have a few comments for you. I have been studying this 911 conspiracy topic for about six months now and it interested me so much that I have put about 150 hours of research into it. So let me guide you. First off I want you to watch this video at this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911

this is what got me started into the entire subject, it goes over every aspect of the attacks and into great detail. Watching this video is the most imprtant part of this process.  then go to this website: www.geocities.com/killtown

this particular website has links to just about every 911 website out there and it has essays, news articles, more videos and unlimited information, especially the timeline of Bush's day on the 11th: did you ever question why the terrorists sent a plane to washington and not to florida, where the president was located. I can honestly say to you that after about a month of research I convinced myself without an ounce of doubt in my mind that our own govt. was responsible for the attacks. I know that  is a hard pill to swallow but as you will find out if you watch the video and really put effort into the research, the evidence you will find is quite overwhelming.

 "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda

Tap, tap, Moe, are you awake?

Tell you what, though: we'll wait an hour before we report you to the Star Chamber.  Gives you a fighting chance to make it to a safe-house...

Blam.

(pause)

Blam.  Blam.

"Just makin' sure."

Blam.

it all happened so fast I didn't get to try out my new:

"jar ready to smash in aisle 9™" citizen blam flag

and I was all excited cuz I finally learned how to do that tm thingy...sigh

as a resident technopeasant™ I felt it was a big day!

next time I guess

With all due respect, I admire you diligence in researching this. That's the good news.

The bad news is that you are on a fools errand. No amount of research, calculation, speculation, estimates. et al, will change the sinple fact that what you are reseaching is simply nonsense. It is the product of fevered minds that, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to accept the truth. These are people who, for reasons unfathomable to the rational mind, see their own government as more of a threat that al Queda, Iran, etc.

I think not worthy of your time and effort. I know it is not worthy of mine.