9/11 Conspiracy Theory - NOT! How to Demolish a Building

[Toro]

My favourite 9/11 conspiracy theory is that it was blown up by thermite. Or is it termites? I can never remember.

Anyways, for anyone who is interested, here is how to destroy a building.

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

Demolition blasters load explosives on several different levels of the building so that the building structure falls down on itself at multiple points. When everything is planned and executed correctly, the total damage of the explosives and falling building material is sufficient to collapse the structure entirely, so cleanup crews are left with only a pile of rubble.

In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.

Wow, that sure sounds like a lot of work. It must have taken months to tour the WTC, load up the explosives and take out the support structures. All without any of the 50,000 people who work there knowing.


Amazing, isn't it!

According to Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services, virtually every building in the world is unique. And for any given building, there are any number of ways a blasting crew might bring it down. Blanchard notes the demolition of the Hayes Homes, a 10-building housing project in Newark, New Jersey, which was demolished in three separate phases over the course of three years. "A different blasting firm performed each phase," Blanchard says, "and although all of the buildings were identical, each blaster chose a slightly different type of explosive and loaded varying numbers of support columns. They even brought the buildings down in different mathematical sequences, with varying amounts of time factored in between each building's collapse."

Those guys in New Jersey sure are stoopid. What took them three years took the Bush-linked government experts in the CIA/FBI/NSA/NHL 10 seconds!

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier cleanup following the blast.

Don't believe any of this nonsense about "support structures" needing to be taken out. That's just gobbledeegook designed to confuse you about what really happened on 9/11.

Actually, it was the termites that quietly ate away the support structure of the two buildings. Termites don't eat steel, you say? Yes they do. The CIA has been developing Supertermites for just this event.

Oh, wait, was it thermite?

The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.

The easiest way to take out the support structures is to hire some scary looking foreigners to fly planes into the buildings.

Or holograms.

Next, blasters can start loading the columns with explosives. Blasters use different explosives for different materials, and determine the amount of explosives needed based on the thickness of the material. For concrete columns, blasters use traditional dynamite or a similar explosive material. Dynamite is just absorbent stuffing soaked in a highly combustible chemical or mixture of chemicals. When the chemical is ignited, it burns quickly, producing a large volume of hot gas in a short amount of time. This gas expands rapidly, applying immense outward pressure (up to 600 tons per square inch) on whatever is around it. Blasters cram this explosive material into narrow bore holes drilled in the concrete columns. When the explosives are ignited, the sudden outward pressure sends a powerful shock wave busting through the column at supersonic speed, shattering the concrete into tiny chunks.

What about thermite? Hello?

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

Thermite!

The people writing this piece are morons.

They probably worked for Popular Mechanics. I heard on the Internet that the author is best friends with a guy who he takes the subway with whose wife knows another woman who has a maid who is sisters with a dog walker of a rich guy who kennels his dogs with the Bushes. Or was it cats? I can never remember.

Blasters determine how much explosive material to use based largely on their own experience and the information provided by the architects and engineers who originally built the building. But most of the time, they won't rely on this data alone. To make sure they don't overload or under-load the support structure, the blasters perform a test blast on a few of the columns, which they wrap in a shield for safety. The blasters try out varying degrees of explosive material, and based on the effectiveness of each explosion, they determine the minimum explosive charge needed to demolish the columns. By using only the necessary amount of explosive material, the blasters minimize flying debris, reducing the likelihood of damaging nearby structures.

Well, that explains the first WTC bombing in 1993. Bush, even though he had just been elected governor of Texas, already knew he'd be President seven years hence - see, he had already bee chosen by the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati - was attempting to take out the structural support of the WTC by planting a van bomb in the garage of the WTC.

Or maybe it was a hologram!

Think about it!

Well, I'd go on, but I'm bored now.

 

[eots]

anyone looking at the collapse of building 7 can see it for what it is a controlled demolition ,3 buildings in one day the first steel buildings ever to collapse due to fire all in one day all falling at free fall speed all falling neatly into there own footprint...impossible

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt9kU9VZ-f8[/ame]
ok thats you tube

bbc advanced knowledge of wtc collapse

made this vid with all the evidence included

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD9XpRQRH6E[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

anyone looking at the collapse of building 7 can see it for what it is a controlled demolition ,3 buildings in one day the first steel buildings ever to collapse due to fire all in one day all falling at free fall speed all falling neatly into there own footprint...impossible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt9kU9VZ-f8
ok thats you tube

bbc advanced knowledge of wtc collapse

made this vid with all the evidence included

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD9XpRQRH6E

Yes yes, Cheney and Bush planned it all and have kept it secret for years, but damn they can not keep secret the plans to attack Iran can they?

 

[CSM]

Yes yes, Cheney and Bush planned it all and have kept it secret for years, but damn they can not keep secret the plans to attack Iran can they?

Obviously, they should have just steered a hurricane into New York City like they did for New Orleans!

 

[Toro]

anyone looking at the collapse of building 7 can see it for what it is a controlled demolition ,3 buildings in one day the first steel buildings ever to collapse due to fire all in one day all falling at free fall speed all falling neatly into there own footprint...impossible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt9kU9VZ-f8
ok thats you tube

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

bbc advanced knowledge of wtc collapse

made this vid with all the evidence included

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD9XpRQRH6E

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

 

[eots]

your conspiracy theory that bin laden and a handful of men took down three towers somehow got NORAD to stand down is the theory that makes no sense
and can not be substantiated wheres the flight recorders the black boxes confessions any DNA how about you prove your theory instead of your unfounded belief groups of people cant keep secrets




frontline: the man who knew | PBSFBI Special Agent John O'Neill was the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda. But to people at FBI headquarters he was too much of a maverick and they stopped ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ - 16k -





THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION

On the 11th September, 2001, three steel framed skyscrapers, World Trade Center One, World Trade Center Two and World Trade Center Seven, collapsed entirely. Other than structures bought down in controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered total collapse. World Trade Centers 3, 4, 5 and 6 also suffered significant damage, but none of these suffered the total collapse seen in World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (in fact, these other buildings showed amazing survivability given that they were repeatedly hit by hundreds of tons of pieces of World Trade Centers 1 and 2, which on impact were traveling at well over 100 miles per hour).

On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out anything at all, are close to zero.

It should be emphasized that World Trade Center Seven suffered total collapse. World Trade Center Seven was neither hit by an aircraft nor by falling debris from the twin towers. If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) then it would be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. Although the WTC Seven collapse warrants the writing of a book, we will deal only with the collapses of WTCs One and Two.


THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse.


THE "TRUSS THEORY" IS LUDICROUS

The truss theory is the absurd belief that the only support (between the central core and the perimeter wall) for the concrete floor slabs, was lightweight trusses. It was invented to explain away what were obviously demolitions and has become the "official" dogma. The central core, perimeter wall and the mythical trusses are all introduced in the next section. There you will find out their dimensions, their numbers and their supposed usage. After reading the rest of this article you should return to this section and (with improved understanding) read it again.

According to the "official" story, there is no significant lateral support for the walls (against wind loading) between the ground and top floors. This is like a bridge with a 1,300 foot span between supports. Even though the tube structure of the perimeter wall was designed for maximum rigidity (within the given weight specifications) the 1,300 foot span between supporting pillars, meant that even this very rigid design would sag in the midsection under wind loading, just like a bridge with such a span. In a typical steel framed building the span between pillars is only 12 feet (one floor) and such a problem does not arise.

The World Trade Center towers were like huge sails in the wind. These sails had to be able to resist the 140 mile per hour winds of a hurricane. Such hurricane force winds exerted a large (some 6000 tons) lateral force on the building. This lateral force is called the wind loading (or force of the wind) on the building. According to the "official" story, the only possible intermediate support comes from the flimsy trusses and the lightweight concrete floors. The WTC was designed to survive a 45 pounds per square foot, wind loading. This translates to a 12 x 207 x 45/2000 = 56 ton force on each of the floor segments. What this 56 ton force on each floor segment means, is that if one was to lay the World Trade Center on its side and use the pull of gravity as a substitute for the push of the wind, then each of the 110 floors would need to be loaded with a 56 ton block of steel (so the entire wall would have to support 110 such blocks of steel, that is, 110 x 56 = 6160 tons in total).

The fact that the tubular structure of the walls is very rigid, does not stop the central core from needing to bend when the walls bend. This means that the walls have to transmit the full force of the wind to the core, so that the core will flex to the same extent as the walls (this is obvious, otherwise if the walls flex while the core does not, the floor slabs would, by definition, be crushed). Again, it is important to note that the rigidity of the walls does not protect the central core from the full force of the wind, what it does, is it limits the distance that the walls (and hence the whole structure) can bend. The more rigid the design the less it tilts in the wind.

In strong winds the midsection of the windward wall will be pushed several feet towards the core. In a typical steel framed building of WTC type design, heavy steel beams transmit the wind loading to the core, which then bends together with the walls. However, in the WTC (as described in the "truss theory") the trusses and floor slabs are too weak to transmit this force to the core without buckling, so the core will stay in its original position as the wall advances to it. This will crush the trusses and floor slabs, leading to the collapse of many floors. Since this did not occur during the 30 years in which the buildings stood, we must assume that the "official" story is false. To see how utterly ridiculous the "official" story is, lets calculate the lateral loading (wind loading) that each one of these trusses was expected to resist. Consider, a one floor segment. Here, we have 30 trusses and a slab of concrete supporting 56 tons. That is about 2 tons per truss and piece of slab. If you balanced a 2 ton block of steel on top of one of these flimsy 60 foot long trusses and (a 60 foot long by 6 foot 8 inches wide by 4 inches thick) slab of concrete, we all know what would happen - the truss and slab would buckle and collapse.

Another point to consider, is that if the walls alone handle lateral loading, then the pressure on the windward wall must be transmitted via the corners to the remaining walls (this transmission of loading to the other walls is what gave the WTC its rigidity) but corners are far too weak to handle this task alone.

Although the "truss theory" is ludicrous, it has been pushed by many "experts". It should be noted that it is inconceivable that these experts did not know that it was false.

 

[Toro]

It does not matter if the WTC was designed to withstand a 767 slamming into it.

What matters is what actually happens.

To assume that because something is designed to withstand a force does not mean it will.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed to withstand wind. It did not.

http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/anm/tacoma/tacoma.html

More on how the WTC collapsed.

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still no explanation of how all those explosives were slipped in to the three buildings and planted, and all the extensive preperations were made to control the demolition of the buildings was accomplished with no one the wiser. Thousands of people every day passed through those buildings, working and visiting. Yet no one noticed a thing. No one saw the explosives, no one saw the pillars cut up. Explosives would have had to be planned not just on the lowest levels but on higher levels too. Yet we have no evidence of any explosions except those caused by the aircraft hitting the buildings. And in the case of 7 NO evidence of explosions at all.

Still no explanation of who REALLY hijacked the aircraft. No explanation of where the two aircraft that supposedly never crashed went, what happened to crew and passengers and the aircraft themselves.

No explanation of what type of missile was used against the Pentagon, no proof any missiles were missing from any inventories, no evidence of aircraft being where they were not supposed to be to fire said missile.

No explanation of how all the people needed to accomplish all these tasks have been kept silent all these years. Not even one "leak" Further we have the Ludicrous claim that not only was the President and his staff involved but that the Mayor of New York and his staff also were involved. That every Agency involved in investigating this act were involved including all the personnel assigned to said investigations. That organizations outside the Government were involved and aided in the "cover up" again all this with no "leak" for all these years.

Ohh and I forgot, all the air traffic controllers, their supervisors, the US Military, the US Air National Guard and the US Air Force, all involved with not one single "leak" ever.

I can sure see how all that is believable.

 

[eots]

Still no explanation of how all those explosives were slipped in to the three buildings and planted, and all the extensive preperations were made to control the demolition of the buildings was accomplished with no one the wiser. Thousands of people every day passed through those buildings, working and visiting. Yet no one noticed a thing. No one saw the explosives, no one saw the pillars cut up. Explosives would have had to be planned not just on the lowest levels but on higher levels too. Yet we have no evidence of any explosions except those caused by the aircraft hitting the buildings. And in the case of 7 NO evidence of explosions at all.

Still no explanation of who REALLY hijacked the aircraft. No explanation of where the two aircraft that supposedly never crashed went, what happened to crew and passengers and the aircraft themselves.

No explanation of what type of missile was used against the Pentagon, no proof any missiles were missing from any inventories, no evidence of aircraft being where they were not supposed to be to fire said missile.

No explanation of how all the people needed to accomplish all these tasks have been kept silent all these years. Not even one "leak" Further we have the Ludicrous claim that not only was the President and his staff involved but that the Mayor of New York and his staff also were involved. That every Agency involved in investigating this act were involved including all the personnel assigned to said investigations. That organizations outside the Government were involved and aided in the "cover up" again all this with no "leak" for all these years.

Ohh and I forgot, all the air traffic controllers, their supervisors, the US Military, the US Air National Guard and the US Air Force, all involved with not one single "leak" ever.

I can sure see how all that is believable.

actually i posted a article on the unprecedented power downs at wtc prior to 911 and eyewitness testimony of const activity's and loud noise coming from the inner core prior to 911 and i have already stated that a real investigation and release of with held evidence such as aircraft parts and surveillance tapes of whatever hit the pentagon witness protection with witnesses testifying under oath and penalty of treason , most of the claims you attribute to me are not mine
Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials Question
the 9/11 Commission Report
Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their statements.

Listed below are statements by more than 110 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.



Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

.More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.


Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."





YouTube - The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part I
9/11 CONSPIRACY: FBI whistleblowers are obstructed, silenced ...
9 min -
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRAxnsay58[/ame]


YouTube - The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part II
Whistle Blower Robert Horton: Boston Tea Party For 911 Truth ...
8 min -
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjEddVpRj7o[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet no explanation as to where the plane went, what happened to the crew, why no traffic controller saw it fly away. No evidence of a secret base, no evidence of troops and personnel assigned to said secret base, no secret murder ground or prison for the missing passengers and crew, no explanation of what happened to the aircraft. No explanation how all these things happened and how no one has talked about them since.

Another of your Conspiracy theories has the Mayor of New York City KNOWING not to go to Building 7 , not because it was damaged but because it was to be destroyed. Meaning he and at least a portion of his staff were aware ahead of time what was going to secretly happen. They may not be YOUR words, but you repeat them here as if you believe them.

Another of your Conspiracy theories holds that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania. I ask again, where did the plane go? Where did the crew and passengers go? Why did no traffic controller see the plane fly away? Why is there no evidence of a secret base with all the personnel required to run it, its airfield and tower, its support personnel, its troops to guard or kill the passengers and crew? What happened to the actual aircraft? You keep posting this theory, so you must believe it, even if it is not "your own words".

As to power outages and construction, why did none of the personnel assigned to maintenance and security at the 2 buildings see nothing? Or are they in on the plot? Why would they go to work in a building being loaded with explosives for destruction?

Why did no one in building 7 see this "construction"? And as for the claim no debris from the towers hit the building that is simply false.

 

[Toro]

Pictures of debris at the Pentagon

More

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.montalk.net/pentagon.html

 

[eots]

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html


A flight attendant friend of his who had flown the Flight 77 route before.

"She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane... She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white...
One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those...
She spent approximately 15 minutes in the crash area looking at parts of the wreckage, all of which she recognized as coming from a Boeing 757 American Airline plane, the same planes she flew regularly. She did not see any rubber, only metal pieces of fuselage, engine parts and sections of the inside of the plane".
www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

Some people have criticised this account, because Judge’s article generally only refers to her as a “friend”, never by name.
........................................................................................................


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

.More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.


Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."


Bio: http://militaryweek.com

GEEE WHO SHOULD I LEND CREDIT TO the friend of a friend who has no name or a eyewitness fighter pilot with a PhD and a name ? hmmmmm
will i know who you would listen to
so i guess yer still one of those thats still believes the jessica lynch story
or that clinton is a lizard that drinks virgins blood yuk yuk har har

 

[Annie]

Do you have any conspiracy stuff that is yours and not cut and paste?

 

[eots]

Do you have any conspiracy stuff that is yours and not cut and paste?

what a stupid comment it makes no sense really .i have expressed my opinion
and provided credible information that supports it, and people that actually have names

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html


A flight attendant friend of his who had flown the Flight 77 route before.

"She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane... She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white...
One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those...
She spent approximately 15 minutes in the crash area looking at parts of the wreckage, all of which she recognized as coming from a Boeing 757 American Airline plane, the same planes she flew regularly. She did not see any rubber, only metal pieces of fuselage, engine parts and sections of the inside of the plane".
www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

Some people have criticised this account, because Judge’s article generally only refers to her as a “friend”, never by name.
........................................................................................................


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

.More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.


Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."


Bio: http://militaryweek.com

GEEE WHO SHOULD I LEND CREDIT TO the friend of a friend who has no name or a eyewitness fighter pilot with a PhD and a name ? hmmmmm
will i know who you would listen to
so i guess yer still one of those thats still believes the jessica lynch story
or that clinton is a lizard that drinks virgins blood yuk yuk har har

Wait a minute? Which is it? No debris or wrong debris? You can not have it both ways. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Your conspiracy theories do not make sense when taken together. They contradict each other. Yet you have no problem with that, just what you think are contradiction from the Government. I wonder why that is?

 

[Toro]

GEEE WHO SHOULD I LEND CREDIT TO the friend of a friend who has no name or a eyewitness fighter pilot with a PhD and a name ? hmmmmm
will i know who you would listen to
so i guess yer still one of those thats still believes the jessica lynch story
or that clinton is a lizard that drinks virgins blood yuk yuk har har

Golly, if academic credentials are what we should go by, I guess this Ph.D.s explanation on how the towers fell is the final word.

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm

Tall buildings have generally been made with a rigid steel skeleton, sheathed in the lightest materials to keep out the weather. Alternatively, reinforced concrete, where the compression-resisting and protecting concrete surrounds the tough, tension-resisting steel, integrated into a single body, has been used. Such structures have never failed (when properly built on good foundations), and stoutly resist demolition. When the lower supports of a steel skeleton are destroyed, the weight of the building seems to crush the lower parts and the upper parts descend slowly into the pile of debris. Monolithic reinforced-concrete buildings are diffcult to demolish in any fashion.

The World Trade Center towers used neither a steel skeleton nor reinforced concrete. They were designed as square tubes made of heavy, hollow welded sections, braced against buckling by the building floors. Massive foundations descended to bedrock, since the towers had to be safe against winds and other lateral forces tending to overturn them. All this was taken into consideration in the design and construction, which seems to have been first-rate. An attempt to damage the buildings by a bomb at the base had negligible effect. The strong base and foundation would repel any such assault with ease, as it indeed did. The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.

What happened next was unexpected and catastrophic. The slumped floors pushed the steel modules outwards, separating them from the floor beams. The next floor then collapsed on the one below, pushing out the steel walls, and this continued, in the same way that a house of cards collapses. The debris of concrete facing and steel modules fell in shower while the main structure collapsed at almost the same rate. In 15 seconds or so, 110 stories were reduced to a pile 9 stories high, mainly of steel wall modules and whatever was around them. The south tower collapsed 47 minutes after impact, the north tower 1 hour 44 minutes after impact. The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost.

It is clear that buildings built in this manner have a catastrophic mode of failure ("house of cards") that should rule out their future construction. It is triggered when there is a partial collapse at any level that breaks the continuity of the tube, which then rolls up quickly, from top to bottom. The collapse has a means of propagation that soon involves the whole structure, bypassing its major strengths and impossible to interrupt. There is no need for an airliner; a simple explosion would do the job. There were central tubes in the towers, for elevators and services, but they appeared to play no substantial role in the collapse, and were not evident in the pictures or wreckage.

Case closed, eh?

Guess we can go home now.

 

[eots]

Wait a minute? Which is it? No debris or wrong debris? You can not have it both ways. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Your conspiracy theories do not make sense when taken together. They contradict each other. Yet you have no problem with that, just what you think are contradiction from the Government. I wonder why that is?

release the evidence and the surveillance tapes of the pentagon that show a plane then have a real investigation the majority of 911 commission members have denounced ther own investigation


Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission – Former Associate Counsel to President Clinton. Former White House Fellow, serving in the Office of the Chief of Staff to President Clinton. Currently Vice President for National Security and International Affairs, Center for American Progress

Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. ... At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot." http://think

.......................................................................................................

John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission – Former Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. Former Chief Counsel to former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman. Former Commissioner of the State Commission of Investigations. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Washington Post Article 8/2/06 - "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. ...

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. ... This is not spin. This is not true

........................................................................................................




Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner – Former 6-term Congressman from Indiana (1991 - 2003). Former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Currently President of the Center for National Policy.

CNN Article 8/2/06 : "A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general. ... "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission – Former 17-term Congressman from Indiana. Former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Currently President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and serves as a member of the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council.

CBC video interview transcript regarding Without Precedent a book about the 9/11 Commission authored by Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton 8/21/06:

Lee Hamilton: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. ... People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.
.........................................................................................................




Evan Solomon: The first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' ... Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: ... we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it. ...

We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail
...........................................................................................................
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003. Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. U.S. Senator from Georgia 1997 - 2002. Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996. Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981. Former Captain, U.S. Army. Awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam. Triple amputee from war injuries.

Article New York Times 10/26/03: "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." http://www.commondreams.org


Article Boston Globe 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised. . . . This is `The Gong Show'; this isn't protection of national security." http://www.


Article Salon 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal." http://dir.salon.com


Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for 12 months. Former Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska was selected to replace him. The 9/11 Commission Report was issued 7 months later.


Interview Democracy Now 3/23/04: "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up." http://www.democracynow.org


Bio: http://memory.loc.gov

 

[Toro]

Gosh, the government didn't tell you everything.

What a surprise!

Who would have thunk that in an act of war, with the greatest military strike by a foreign entity on American soil in the 231 year history of the country, and with security personnel bungling it, not everything came out.

Yup, that proves it! Bush masterminded everything, cunningly executing The Plan while he read "My Pet Goat."

 

[jillian]

Do I think there were serious failures on the part of the admin. Yep... starting with ignoring the PDB saying 'osama bin laden determined to fly planes into buildings"...

But if the admin had planned it, the towers would still be standing.

 

[eots]

Golly, if academic credentials are what we should go by, I guess this Ph.D.s explanation on how the towers fell is the final word.

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm



Case closed, eh?

Guess we can go home now.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission ...
This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by ... 150+ Professors Question 9/11. 190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members ...www.patriotsquestion911.com - 433k - Cached

not one...many including eyewitnesses and and military with top ranking flight and Intel experience that know how things really work that have no problem believing ,secrets can be kept and the official story goes against all they know and have experienced