A Question of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

[manu1959]

someone tell me again why we chose to wage war rather than just buy iraq.....

 

[Mr. Jones]

Plus, many others that I do not feel like posting.

Looking for truth in credentials-
When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars. To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so.
That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.
The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable of, or more likely to, tell the truth.
Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.
From where, then, has the vocal support come within the engineering community? Matthew Rothschild points to some interesting characters when he says that “I made a few calls myself”, including to Gene Corley and to Mete Sozen. Additionally, Rothschild says that he consulted “some of the top building design and engineering firms”, like Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Greenhorne & O’Mara. To emphasize just how solid the government’s story is, he adds that he “also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

What Mr. Rothschild failed to tell us is that Gene Corley and Mete Sozen not only created the reports that he is defending, but have also, for many years, worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP). Since 1997, this program has provided the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.[2] After 9/11, astronomical increases in DOD funding were likely to have benefited all DOD partners and programs, like DOD’s Nunn-Perry award winner, Greenhorne & O’Mara, and those involved with the BMSP. Of course, the DOD was probably already awash in black-budget funds prior to 9/11, as indicated by the missing trillions reported by the DOD on 9/10/01.[3]

Rothschild also failed to let us know that Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), one of his independent engineering firms, is responsible for the architectural design of the new Freedom Tower. SOM gained that contract at the personal insistence of Larry Silverstein, the original owner of WTC 7 and the WTC towers’ leaseholder. Mr. Rothschild may also not be aware that William Baker, a top executive at SOM, was involved in several of the official WTC investigations and reports that have been generated. In any case it is clear that the “Freedom Tower” would not be the publicity-rich project it is today if an alternative explanation forced us to rename it the “There Goes Our Freedom Tower”.

Getting back to those experts at BMSP, we see that DOD employs a number of consulting firms to help out Corley and Sozen, in what is called the Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), including ARUP, ARA, SAIC, SGH, Thornton-Tomasetti and Weidlinger Associates.[4] It should be noted that most of these firms were major contributors to the various official explanations for collapse of the WTC buildings, as well as being government contractors in fields related to terrorism. Strangely, despite their overwhelming expertise in the use of explosives, none of their explanations for the WTC events had anything to do with explosives.

In any case, it is clear that Rothschild’s primary experts have a long history of involvement in US government interests, and in highly questionable engineering reports. But surely the “engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country” could not all be so tied to US government interests. There must be some objective members within the group of scientists supporting the Bush Administration’s theories, and some agreement among scientists around the world.
The truth is that interpretation of the events at the WTC does include some agreement from all parties. We all agree that no tall steel-framed building in history has ever collapsed uniformly at nearly free-fall speed into a pile of rubble for any reason whatsoever, outside of demolition. And we’re in agreement that the first three occasions of such an event supposedly occurred all on the same day, all in the same place. ..
From there, however, the views of the government’s credentialed experts diverge from those who are more interested in objectively seeking the truth. The initial facts of agreement should lead any objective person to seek a detailed investigation that leaves no hypothesis un-examined. But for the government’s credentialed experts, only one hypothesis was worthy of consideration, a fire-based failure of all three buildings that jibed with the overall official version of the events of that day.
In support of that fire-based triple play, the experts gave us a progression of false stories. The media gave us the first false story, with help from PhD engineers, some of whom were contributors to the official reports. Eduardo Kausel, an “engineering professor at MIT” and contributor to the WTC report generated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), suggested to us in Scientific American that this catastrophe was probably due to the jet fuel fires melting the steel in the buildings.[8] He was joined in this early theory by a handful of other PhD engineers and professors around the country,....Another structural engineer who made early claims of melting steel, in the infamous 2002 Nova video “Why the Towers Fell”, was Matthys Levy. Mr. Levy was a principal at the BMAG consulting firm Weidlinger Associates that, later, with the help of many other PhD engineers, produced a report on the WTC disaster as part of an insurance claim by Larry Silverstein.
....Their final report told us that floor failure had nothing to do with the WTC disasters, but “that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors, explains the collapses.”[11] At the time, Levy told us “There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure.”[12]
Unfortunately, the credentialed experts were wrong again. Until NIST’s final report came out in 2005, the “Pancake Theory” had replaced the column failure theory as the most widely accepted explanation for collapse. FEMA, along with a professor of Engineering from Northwestern, Zdenek Bazant, championed this theory of pancaking floors as the major explanation for the collapse of both towers, directly contradicting the Silverstein-Weidlinger report.
....Amazingly enough, just last summer NIST finally admitted that the explanation could not involve pancaking floors either, by saying “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse”.[13] NIST’s findings, first reported in their final draft report of October 2004 and built over a period of several years, originally consisted of two considerably different stories for the two towers.
But NIST modified this nine months later in their final, final draft report, giving just one story for both towers about “widely-dislodged” fireproofing and sagging floors pulling the external columns inward, with no mention of pancaking. Their final, final collapse initiation sequence, the essence of their report, is now known to be false in every aspect.

Through the years, NIST and the other official investigators ignored the demolition hypothesis completely, as can be seen from their reports and archived presentations.

The experts you site are not going to deviate from the official line -
"That’s not surprising though, as the scientists working for FEMA and NIST, and therefore for the Bush Administration, would not likely lead their investigation toward a result that would limit or stop the 9/11 Wars. -Read DOD

And we can imagine that all those “independent” contractors who contributed to the ever-changing story, who were also consulting firms for the DOD’s interesting Blast Mitigation Action Group, would be hard-pressed to offer an explanation that would require a less militarily focused solution. -Kevin Ryan

Read the rest of it to find out how some of the "experts" used to back up the official version received government grants to their engineering depts. at schools like University of California San Diego, and Carnegie Mellon University.

Those of us fighting for the truth about 9/11 owe it to the victims of the expanding 9/11 Wars, and to ourselves, to reveal these ongoing lies from corporate criminals and their credentialed “experts”. It is becoming increasingly obvious that those giving us one false story after another, while simultaneously ignoring much of the evidence of 9/11, might have more than just a cozy relationship with this government, and more than a benign past. It seems quite possible that some among those providing these explanations are knowingly complicit in the greater crime of a 9/11 cover-up.

It is also true that, like Matthew Rothschild, many of us (YOU PEOPLE) simply want quick and easy answers, in order to relieve ourselves of any need to think about the facts of 9/11..

4um: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts”

 

[Big_D]

Plus, many others that I do not feel like posting.

because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities.

So these people believe the experts who I have shown create fictional papers on 9/11 because they cannot find work or will not be able to get work without the govt's help? That is one of the most silly explanations I have ever heard. First off, the experts I have shown have jobs as professors, they do not need to find any work at all. Secondly, are you saying that ALL the professors in the United States know 9/11 is an inside job and have no values at all so they just keep quiet? Couldn't they just go to a foreign country to start a new life and then start saying the "truth"? Thirdly, a good number of the people I have shown are not even Americans. In fact, a number of the experts I showed on the post you quoted me had engineers that were not Americans. Here is a list of foreigners who agree with that it is the terrorists who caused 9/11:
• Dr. Asif Usmani: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh
o His view on 9/11: Edinburgh Research Archive : Item 1842/1216
o His Credentials: Fire Safety Engineering
• Dr. Jose Torero: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh
o His View on 9/11: Edinburgh Research Archive : Item 1842/1216
o His credentials: Fire Safety Engineering
• Masayuki Nakao Engineering professor at the University of Tokyo.
o His view on 9/11: JST Failure Knowledge Database > Case Details > The World Trade Center Collapse
o His credentials: Masayuki Nakao
• Arvid Naess: Professor of engineering at Norwegian University of Science and Technology
o His View on 9/11: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper
o His Credentials: NTNU Institutt for matematiske fag
o Professor Arvid Naess
• Dr Keith Seffen Engineering Professor at Cambridge University
o His view on 9/11: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 9/11 demolition theory challenged
o His Credentials: Keith Seffen
• Dr. Tim Wilkinson: Professor of engineering at The university of Sydney
o His view on 9/11: World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
o His credentials: Tim Wilkinson - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney

NONE of the preceding were Americans. These people would have NO reason to take the time to make up a fictional paper on 9/11. They have NO incentive at all.

If you want an instance of someone who might not believe what he says, then you can just look at Alex Jones. He failed at being a Republican politician and at former radio show before making claims that 9/11 was an inside job. He CLEARLY has made a living doing this now.

That article also sites how a number of the papers that agree with the official story differ from one another. They are different people with different opinions. They are not going to come to the exact same conclusion on why the buildings fell. It also states that apparently schools received grants for creating papers that agree with the govt. First, I have a hard time believing they can prove that it was directly correlated to this. Secondly, there are many schools who's engineering professors written papers and they do not even make the claim for a large number of them. The piece also makes claims that NIST didn't bother to check for any signs of demotion. Anyone can see from a bit of research that they have made issue to that. This article drops likes to drop names of experts who disagree with them but never states how they are corrupt.

 

[Big_D]

someone tell me again why we chose to wage war rather than just buy iraq.....

The people who believe in the hoax cannot argue that. If 9/11 was an inside job, our govt could have just as easily said that the people attacking us were simply from Iraq as oppose to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.

 

[DiveCon]

someone tell me again why we chose to wage war rather than just buy iraq.....

The people who believe in the hoax cannot argue that. If 9/11 was an inside job, our govt could have just as easily said that the people attacking us were simply from Iraq as oppose to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.

and if they could have pulled this off, why didnt they PLANT stockpiles of WMD in Iraq
Hmmmmm

 

[Andrew2382]

what I love about these cooks is their sense of logic.

They truly believe that 9/11 was devised from the top peaks of our goverment to have us go to war. It would have involved hundreds of people, from the demolotion to the planning etc..

They did all this, yet if it truly were a conspiracy.

WOULDN'T THEY HAVE HAD JUST 1 TEAM PLANT A NUKE IN IRAQ TO PROVE THERE WERE WMD'S THERE!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

When Hitler is referenced, people don't think of the Reichstag. If your goal is to convince people, making any reference to Hitler is remarkably dumb, because unless you are talking to the True Believers, everyone else - including the undecided - will say "that's idiotic" since Hitler conjures up visions of genocide and barbarity, not the Reichstag.[/QUOTE]
The goal is to get people to think with more of an open mind about their country, if comparing Bush with Hitler automatically makes people think what you say, then that is proof society is programmed to think a certain way at the mere mention of a name or topic. All one has to do is ask why the comparison is made. That's the problem, no one asks why about anything. Many people today frequently dismiss information without questioning it, without considering it and in many cases without even looking at it.
Because CNN and FOX news figure it for them [/QUOTE]

exactly,they just automatically accept what the corporate controlled media tells them and brainwashes them with.I've said it before but it always goes ignored,stop listening to what the corporate controlled media tells you and look at alternative news such as MEDIA BYPASS,AMERICAN FREE PRESS AND ROCK CREEK FREE PRESS.

If they would bother and do that,they would see that agencys like the CIA make the third reich look like a bunch of choir boys and you would hear about the autrocities that presidents have committed that rival Hitlers and Stalins.Your not going to hear about them though from the corporate controlled CIA media so STOP LISTENING TO THEM and START reading those other alternative news sources people.as long as you keep going what your doing,your heads will remain buried in the sand like an ostrich which is what they want you to keep doing.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I was also talking yesterday about how the reason the world is in such a mess that it is and why we have wars all the time is because of the CIA and that was why they killed kennedy cause he wanted to get rid of them.When your a president who wants to do good for the people like kennedy did,they get rid of you.speaking of the CIA since they werre behind 9/11,Harry Truman who created the CIA back in 1947 himself said in later years when he got out of office that creating the CIA was the worst mistake he ever made in his entire time as president,that he created an out of control monster.

When Truman created it,the purpose for creating it in the beginning was to have the CIA Director gather information about other agencys around the world and report directly to the president about it.Thats what their duties WERE in the beginning,but then they became an out of control agency engaging an illegal covert activities starting wars in other countries creating false pretenses for war.Thats how all the drugs get supplied into the country is from the CIA.thats all been documented.Truman later in life realised that was happening and thats when he confessed creating the CIA was the worst mistake he ever made during his time as president and that he had created a monster.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Ok fellas, I can appreciate the questions you all ask, and I readily admit, they are pretty good questions, ie: how the devices were planted, and the amount of people necessary to pull the event off. What I like about those questions is that it at least shows that you guys are thinking about this and in turn makes me think and look into it more. Debate is good and necessary, something experts on both sides need to do, in a public forum, hell if a debate were to be televised with both sides bringing their opinions and hypotheses I bet the ratings would shoot through the roof. But damn it you can't expect one side to have all the answers, the government hasn't even provided what we want or need to know. I think we should change course a bit and see what we DO agree with concerning 9-11. Like, do all agree that this was the first time in history that 3 buildings were totally demolished by fire? Can we agree that the gov has changed its story of the events? Can we agree that there are a shit load of very suspicious or coincidental things that occurred before and after the wtc came down. And can we agree that many documented televised interviews with survivors say that they heard explosions coming from the basements of these buildings?
I'm just throwing this suggestion out there because we seem to get sidetracked and bounce from one thing to another and it makes it hard to stay focused. I want you all to keep this in mind regarding 9-11 about me personally, I initially believed the official story was plausible, but I kept viewing the videos of the destruction, and damn it It looks like there is a tremendous amount of energy exploding out ward, and the thing that most makes me skeptical of the govs version is the FACT that the towers came down at free fall speed with the bottom solid structure providing nearly NO resistance!! So what if anything CAN we agree on about all this and let's go from there? Your thoughts??

 

[Andrew2382]

the enter button is your friend

 

[DiveCon]

Ok fellas, I can appreciate the questions you all ask, and I readily admit, they are pretty good questions, ie: how the devices were planted, and the amount of people necessary to pull the event off. What I like about those questions is that it at least shows that you guys are thinking about this and in turn makes me think and look into it more. Debate is good and necessary, something experts on both sides need to do, in a public forum, hell if a debate were to be televised with both sides bringing their opinions and hypotheses I bet the ratings would shoot through the roof. But damn it you can't expect one side to have all the answers, the government hasn't even provided what we want or need to know. I think we should change course a bit and see what we DO agree with concerning 9-11. Like, do all agree that this was the first time in history that 3 buildings were totally demolished by fire? Can we agree that the gov has changed its story of the events? Can we agree that there are a shit load of very suspicious or coincidental things that occurred before and after the wtc came down. And can we agree that many documented televised interviews with survivors say that they heard explosions coming from the basements of these buildings?
I'm just throwing this suggestion out there because we seem to get sidetracked and bounce from one thing to another and it makes it hard to stay focused. I want you all to keep this in mind regarding 9-11 about me personally, I initially believed the official story was plausible, but I kept viewing the videos of the destruction, and damn it It looks like there is a tremendous amount of energy exploding out ward, and the thing that most makes me skeptical of the govs version is the FACT that the towers came down at free fall speed with the bottom solid structure providing nearly NO resistance!! So what if anything CAN we agree on about all this and let's go from there? Your thoughts??

the fact is, they DIDNT come down at free fall speed
that is a claim that is unsupported by the facts
to be free fall speed the times you use would mean that the building fell into a hole below ground level
and there was about a 4 story pile
it was NOT free fall

 

[Mr. Jones]

Ok fellas, I can appreciate the questions you all ask, and I readily admit, they are pretty good questions, ie: how the devices were planted, and the amount of people necessary to pull the event off. What I like about those questions is that it at least shows that you guys are thinking about this and in turn makes me think and look into it more. Debate is good and necessary, something experts on both sides need to do, in a public forum, hell if a debate were to be televised with both sides bringing their opinions and hypotheses I bet the ratings would shoot through the roof. But damn it you can't expect one side to have all the answers, the government hasn't even provided what we want or need to know. I think we should change course a bit and see what we DO agree with concerning 9-11. Like, do all agree that this was the first time in history that 3 buildings were totally demolished by fire? Can we agree that the gov has changed its story of the events? Can we agree that there are a shit load of very suspicious or coincidental things that occurred before and after the wtc came down. And can we agree that many documented televised interviews with survivors say that they heard explosions coming from the basements of these buildings?
I'm just throwing this suggestion out there because we seem to get sidetracked and bounce from one thing to another and it makes it hard to stay focused. I want you all to keep this in mind regarding 9-11 about me personally, I initially believed the official story was plausible, but I kept viewing the videos of the destruction, and damn it It looks like there is a tremendous amount of energy exploding out ward, and the thing that most makes me skeptical of the govs version is the FACT that the towers came down at free fall speed with the bottom solid structure providing nearly NO resistance!! So what if anything CAN we agree on about all this and let's go from there? Your thoughts??

the fact is, they DIDNT come down at free fall speed
that is a claim that is unsupported by the facts
to be free fall speed the times you use would mean that the building fell into a hole below ground level
and there was about a 4 story pile
it was NOT free fall

I watched a video with a timer next to the falling building. It came down sooner then it should have. Ok is there anything that you agree
with your opposition about, anything at all?

 

[DiveCon]

not when the opposition is WRONG

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=related]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

i thought you didnt trust the NIST?

btw, that video is NOT NIST, its another one of you F'n NUTTERS

 

[Mr. Jones]

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

i thought you didnt trust the NIST?

btw, that video is NOT NIST, its another one of you F'n NUTTERS

You must have skipped the part where the NIST
spokesmen stumbled all over their words. From reading your BS posts in this thread it's obvious you are only interested in ridiculing people since you haven't contributed anything resembling intelligence in your responses. You aren't concerned about 9-11, and probably don''t give a damn about your country, all you want to do is engage in tactics one finds in a school yard at recess,.. pathetic.
The video clearly shows the NIST reps struggling to come up with answers to difficult questions, and yet all you can up with is
"btw, that video is NOT NIST, its another one of you F'n NUTTERS"
Quit wasting our time and find a thread that fits your IQ level dude.

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

i thought you didnt trust the NIST?

btw, that video is NOT NIST, its another one of you F'n NUTTERS

You must have skipped the part where the NIST
spokesmen stumbled all over their words. From reading your BS posts in this thread it's obvious you are only interested in ridiculing people since you haven't contributed anything resembling intelligence in your responses. You aren't concerned about 9-11, and probably don''t give a damn about your country, all you want to do is engage in tactics one finds in a school yard at recess,.. pathetic.
The video clearly shows the NIST reps struggling to come up with answers to difficult questions, and yet all you can up with is
"btw, that video is NOT NIST, its another one of you F'n NUTTERS"
Quit wasting our time and find a thread that fits your IQ level dude.

assholes like you nutters dont deserve anything BUT ridicule

 

[eots]

poor Little retarded divcon....

 

[manu1959]

why do buildings free fall.......

 

[DiveCon]

poor Little retarded divcon....

poor eots, cant even spell my name right