posted 12-19-2003 10:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:

Doubt all claims by all sides, and just trust your own eyes, your own ears, and form your own opinions.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by shatoga on 12-19-2003]

---

posted 12-19-2003 10:19 PM            

that kean was fearfully backtracking does not change a single word of the accurate quotes nor of the interview in which his very own words were presented.

Almost anyone can be frightened into recanting an honest statement,
as Kean proves so well.

Some of us could actually get a validation of our statements by being eliminated.

Martyrs' dying declarations inspire movements to overthrow tyrants.

That's probably the only reason I still draw breath and post.

posted 12-20-2003 03:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
As I already stated elsewhere, I'm still waiting for a response from Mech as to the lack of smoke from WTC6 (which he claims collapsed at 9:04am)

---

I think it’s me you’re waiting for, not Mech. And yes, I knew who you meant. I was just being smart like you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
For example, I provided pictures for JerseyBluEyz in a previous post. JerseyBlueEyz seems to suggest that WTC6 exploded at 9:04am. So I provide pictures for him that were taken after 9:04am and before the first tower collapsed and simply ask: Where is the smoke from the WTC6 explosion? If it happened at 9:04am we should see that smoke. We don't. The absence of smoke supports my position that, most probably, the supposed "explosion" footage of WTC6 was really of the first tower collapsing. That's the most logical explanation for the lack of smoke in other pictures after 9:04am--because there simply wasn't any until the building collapsed.

So I *DO* bring comments and logical explanations to the discussion when needed. And if I need to provide links in the future, I will do so. But so far simply providing a few pictures is about all the evidence that has been needed to refute JerseyBlueEyz.
And I will do so as people engage me on points of fact, as I have already refuted JerseyBlueEyz's statements with links to pictures that show a complete lack of smoke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
I'll be looking forward to Jersey's response to the lack of smoke in the pictures I provided. It's not for me to have to explain the lack of smoke since I don't think there was any smoke at 9:04am coming from the base of the Trade Center. It's up to those that believe that WTC6 exploded at 9:04am to explain the LACK of smoke in all other pictures up until the time the first tower fell.

---

I already responded to you. I showed you a picture AND then disclosed the animated video you requested. You know as well as I do that many images and videos have since then been removed from the Net - for one reason or another. Besides, I claimed there was a suspicious smoke burst (after the second plane hit) long before YOU came here claiming the opposite. You engaged first so the burden of proof rests on YOUR shoulders.

It looks to me like a polarizer was used in those photos you posted – that could explain the clarity in the sky and possible lack of thinned out smoke. The smoke is black in one of your images – which was well into the burning period – quite a while after impact. The smoke is blowing in another direction in a second image, so there obviously was slight wind on the scene, and in the third image – the towers are already collapsing so MY smoke would already have dissipated. So you see, your photos do not prove a lack of smoke.

In my images, the towers are clearly standing, nothing has fallen that could have created the burst, and the collapsing stage HAS NOT yet begun. Your pictures posted do not explain a lack thereof. If you feel it does, it’s time for you to move on due to YOUR lack of evidence. How about you show me a picture, from the correct street angle that includes WTC 6 and WTC 7, just after 9:00 a.m., with no cloud burst.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Well, I'm still waiting for a response on why, if WTC6 exploded at 9:04am, there are no pictures of smoke rising from the base of the twin towers in any of the pictures taken while both towers were burning. There should have been smoke rising from the base of the towers, yet I have yet to see any such pictures.

---

You act as if there are people on every corner in NYC with cameras handy 24/7. If that image previously posted was not smoke rising from the base of the towers, what was it then? And what exactly do you mean – well, I’m still waiting for a response on why, if WTC 6 exploded….? You might be waiting because people have a life outside of this forum. Some of us have a day job and families. BTW, did you know that patience is a virtue?

posted 12-20-2003 09:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:

Let me answer you: I have NO desire to put any effort into proving my level of knowledge.

---

Such as actually visiting links or viewing evidence for yourself.
If you refuse to even look at all evidence available, you are deliberately arguing from ignorance.

It shows in your repeated demand for proofs already made available.

On the topic of the WTC collapses, and other events of 9/11 you have refused to be educated,
In that refusal to visit links and view evidence.
you thus force others to assume of you that (on this topic) you are deliberately uneducated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Well, I'm still waiting for a response on why, if WTC6 exploded at 9:04am, there are no pictures of smoke rising from the base of the twin towers in any of the pictures taken while both towers were burning. There should have been smoke rising from the base of the towers, yet I have yet to see any such pictures.

---

Link to photos and video of the collapse of WTC-7 http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html

Visit the link.
View all photos.
Click all links.
See and read the entire page and linked pages.
Then, argue from an informed position, instead of the present chosen position of ignorance,
which causes better informed people to naturally assume you are just a propagandist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
There should have been smoke rising from the base of the towers, yet I have yet to see any such pictures.

---

See pictures showing the demolitions of WTC buildings via explosives.

Link to photos and video evidence of explosives (squibs) cutting structural supports as the buildings began that sudden collapse: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
>Collapse Footage Shows
Unmistakable Demolition Charges<

Anyone who has ever seen a controlled demolition, will at once recognize that the pictures clearly show explosive charges cutting structural supports.

For those who have never seen a controlled demolition.
Visit links included for viewing videos of official controlled demolitions.
(and shame on you for not already visiting the previously posted links to controlled demolition videos)

Link to more evidence taken from broadcast live footage: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Flashes/flashes.htm
>The location and timing of these flashes are consistent with the location of cutting charges in a controlled demolition, though they no doubt represent only a small fraction of the number of charges that were involved. Actually most of of the flashes would have been hidden from view, since those on the outer walls would have been placed on the inside of the perimeter columns, and those in the core would also be hidden . The visible flashes probably represent larger cutting charges, or ones that were placed a little off-center on the columns.
Notice that this first brief flash takes place just before the upper section begins to telescope on itself, and the multiple flashes near the end of the clip take place just ahead of the collapse wave, exactly as would be needed to allow the collapse to proceed smoothly down the building.
<

quote:

---

Origionally posted by Afirefighter:

I saw for myself, what's the point?

---

You (inadvertanly Ihope) remind me of the Vietnam Vet I met who insisted Vietnam was nothing but swamps and rice paddies.
He denied the very existence of the northern highlands or forests of the iron triangle.
He was there. He had seen with his own eyes.
He was certain that all pictures showing hills and valley and jungles were fakes!
He was there. He had seen a small part of the picture, only what was within his own field of view.

IF you are viewing all evidence presented by all posting in this topic I apologize that that comment, among others, caused me to harbor the misconception that you might have mental blinders affecting your viewpoint.
I have been wrong before and admitted it.

>First-hand Accounts of Underground Explosions In The North Tower
This article from Chief Engineer magazine presents eyewitness account of the moments after the first plane crash, and describes evidence of large explosions in the lobby, parking garage and subbasement levels of WTC-1 at the time of the crash<
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
>"...the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and “sit tight” until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”, referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.
They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building."
Consider the implications of what Mr. Pecoraro describes. At this point the only overt damage to the building was the plane crash some 95 floors above,...< http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/underground/underground_explosions.htm
There was someone who was there inside the WTC during the known terrorist bombing in 1993 and during the events of 9/11.
He could recognize an explosion from personal experience.
[B]another eyewitness account of underground blasts at the WTC
Construction worker Phillip Morelli describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. This is one of a series of interviews with WTC survivors done by NY1 News: http://ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Well, I'm still waiting for a response on why, if WTC6 exploded at 9:04am, there are no pictures of smoke rising from the base of the twin towers in any of the pictures taken while both towers were burning. There should have been smoke rising from the base of the towers, yet I have yet to see any such pictures.

---

Not entirely ignoring your strawman diversion about smoke or not and exact times of collapses.

Just incredulous that still ask for the proof already presented via numerous links.

Again with this post.
You have been presented with incontrovertable evidence via links to photos videos and eyewitness testimony,
both by firemen present that day, engineers, and others.

No ignorance about the WTC demolitions is excusable after so many pages of proof.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
either of us can post a hundred links and that doesn't mean we actually read them.

---

I visit every link, read every page of every website, copy pictures and examine them for evidence of image manipulation.
Larson seems to visit links, so do most of the rest of us here.

To anyone new to this topic:

Spend a week or so visiting every link in this topic, actually examining the evidence presented by all sides.

Your INFORMED participation in any discussion will always be welcomed by me.

posted 12-20-2003 05:35 PM            

Muhu wahahahahahha!

Great points! Sound familiar, too! Hmmm!

Nice of you to post the links!

posted 12-20-2003 07:09 PM            

quote:

---

Why do you think those who mistrust the regular media outlets, mistrust them?

---

In theory I understand what you're saying. There is spin on everything, obviously, and the trick isn't just seeing the news, it's discerning what is fact and what is spin. The more sources of news you follow the better. I check CNN, CBS, Fox, and sometimes ABC News. I also follow two newspapers in Spanish here in Mexico (El Universal in Mexico City and El Norte in Monterrey). When Al Jazeera feels like working in English, I follow that too. They are all "mainstream" news sources in their respective areas, but when you get news from so many different places in more than one language from countries with different perspectives you can usually triangulate the truth.

That said, I'm personally not confident that simply going to "alternate" news sources necessarily provides better information. Sometimes it might, sometimes it's just different spin. Most "alternate" news sources that I have seen either seem to be biased to the left or right, neither of which is any more helpful than whatever spin the mainstream news sources may be putting on any given story.

Now, you gave me a list of quite a few alternative news sources. Can you recommend two or three of those that you truly believe provide unbiased news? I.e., I don't want a source that caters to liberals, to conservatives, or to conspiracists. Just pure, unbiased reporting. That would be a goldmine to me. If you can recommend a couple then that would be an invaluable source for me to add to my daily news intake.

quote:

---

I hear you. As far as knowing whether someone reads links or not, when we refer to them, we post them, sometimes quote parts of the articles, and therebye support our positions or refute them. Not only do we use logic, but we use other expert logic and supporting math, physics, or whatever the subject entails in order to boost credability of position. Through this method, Larson and I, as well as shatoga and mech have used links in a way that is obvious that we've read them.

---

I agree 100%. And when we're debating a point and I need to cite references I'll certainly do so. I just meant to say that I wasn't and am not going to "prove my knowledge" by posting 100 links on various 9/11 topics right now. I'll post links "as we go" in any given debate to support my position, just as you suggested.

quote:

---

When it comes to the kind of research I was referring to, such as physicists' and engineers' statements, to be clear, the other more simple theories, such as pancaking due to weight, and high temps due to jet fuel, simply weren't there and didn't have any expert support... Why isn't the absence of evidence proof that a theory is weak? One theory is this (with evidence) and the other theory is that (without evidence) -- which would you tend to accept?

---

I see what you're saying, but I would ask you also to ask yourself about, say, UFOs. If you search for information about UFOs you'll find plenty of sites and sources that make believable cases for UFOs, some are even firsthand accounts. And if you look for information proving that UFOs don't exist you'll find a lot less information--you'll find some sites debunking specific events (much like you'll find a few sites debunking specific 9/11 theories), but overall you're going to find a lot more information that would appear to support the existince of UFOs.

Does that mean UFOs are alien lifeforms visiting us from another planet? Maybe. Or it could just be that most of the people that don't believe in UFOs don't demand proof of that. So if you look for proof you'll find the "proof" that they exist but you'll find a lack of evidence proving they don't. Does that mean I should automatically believe that UFOs are ET from another planet? Or perhaps that one side of the debate is simply more vocal, more determined to make their case than the other side.

In the case of 9/11, those that believe in the conspiracy theory are generally going to be a lot more "worked up" than those that believe the official story. It is not surprising, then, that you're going to find more "evidence" to support that side of the debate.

quote:

---

We're talking complicated engineering subjects, photos showing explosions,

---

Granted, but... are you an engineer? I'm not. I can read one site that is supposedly written by an engineer and it can all sound logical, but until and unless I take that site and consult another engineer I really have no way to know how much credibility to put in that engineering explanation. Same goes for explosions.

How did you validate these complex engineering issues and determine the validity of certain conclusions regarding explosions?

quote:

---

and the evidence of steel girders missing due to radically disappearing evidence that might have shown explosive residue. The logic of this is: why did the steel get shipped elsewhere so quickly? Why?

---

These are valid questions, but the questions themselves are not evidence of wrongdoing or conspiracy. Expedience, efficiency, trying to deal with tens of thousands of tons of concrete and steel to make room for more of the same coming in, and the conclusion that it was obvious what happened 9/11--all these are possible explanations of why "evidence" was destroyed so quickly.

If someone commits suicide--and there is no doubt that it was suicide--there is very little effort, if any, spent in investigating it. What happened was obvious. The reality is that 9/11 appeared very obvious to the vast majority of the world and it is not a stretch for someone to conclude, "Why investigate it? We saw airplanes hit it and the buildings burn. We know why they collapsed." Unfortunately, after the fact and given conspiracy theories, it can give the appearance of trying to destroy evidence. But that is speculation, not fact.

quote:

---

Were those who saw, heard, and photographed explosions simply liars?

---

Were the people that saw, heard, and photographed "explosions" explosive experts? Could it be they heard the compression wave moving down the building, or the floors pancaking on one another? Could it be that what they perceived as explosions were actually the air and debris being forced out of the building as the compression wave moved down the building?

I doubt the witnesses were liars. But if there is a simple shooting involving multiple gunshots in downtown L.A. and you ask various witnesses how many shots were fired you'll usually get different answers. It's not that any of them are liars, they just remember incorrectly or perceive things differently.

Likewise, some people originally thought a small airplane had crashed into the tower even though subsequent video made it clear it was, in fact, a commercial jetliner. I doubt they were liars, either, just mistaken. And if people can be mistaken about an airplane being about 10 times larger than what they thought it was, is it really reasonable to expect them to be able to pinpoint the kind of noise they heard when a 110-story building was collapsing?

quote:

---

Yes there is! For every position I stated, and every area of debate, I used articles by quoting them, by questioning the opposing side based on them, and it was obvious that I simply didn't post a link without reading it

---

I agree with you there. I was referring to the fact that if either one of us posts a list of a hundred links to "prove" our knowledge it doesn't mean we actually read those links. Obviously if we include links to support any statement in a debate then it is logical that we did read that link.

quote:

---

But if you're offered a link to read, you will read it. Right?

---

Yes, I will read it.

I will add the caveat that if someone simply posts a list of several links for no particular reason and with no explanation of why I should be reading it then, no, I probably won't. They should at least do me the favor of telling me why I should click the link. In the past I've read links that someone told me to read and when I was done my response was "So what? What here is under debate or why did you want me to read it?"

Likewise, Mech posted some huge message the other day apparently detailing some mathematical calculations of the collapse of the towers--I had seen it before and I wasn't even debating that issue with Mech so I just moved on without reading it.

But yes, if someone provides a link that is relevant to a debate I am involved in then of course I will read it.

Again, I lookng forward to debating you. You seem to be one of the most collected, calm, and logical conspiracists that I've found to-date.

posted 12-20-2003 07:36 PM            

quote:

---

actually (point of fact!)
I was citing the next day's CBS evening news which stood by the previous day's story and refused to retract a single word!

---

Point of fact, that is incorrect.

Mech started the "Breaking 9-11 News: Bush Admin Responsible" (http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001701.html) thread at 12-18-2003 09:39 AM. He copy/pasted the article from CBS News right into his message. Compare his original post with the the CBS News article and you will see they are identical (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml). Despite the fact that CBS News and Kean made no reference of the Bush administration being responsible, Mech decided to title his thread "Bush Admin Responsible" (probably because he blindly copied the story from http://truthout.org/docs_03/121803A1.shtml without realizing that the editorial section blasted Bush administratio even though the actual CBS story made no such accusation, nor did Kean). That was spin on the part of TruthOut.

Later Thursday (actually early Friday morning) at 12-19-2003 12:34 AM I posted a copy of a CNN article entitled "9/11 CHAIRMAN NOT BLAMING ANYONE" which CNN posted at 12-18-2003 9:53PM--after Thursday's Nightline (which I saw and recorded on VCR). In Nightline, Kean basically clarified the comments that had been mischaracterized throughout the day. Again, if you'll look at the original CBS article you'll find no mention of him blaming the Bush administration and Kean simply restated that in his Nightline interview.

Then at 12-19-2003 01:15 AM you posted a message citing http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml and claiming "CBS refuses to apologize for telling the truth." But the article you cited is the exact same article Mech had posted nearly 18 hours earlier and contains no suggestion that CBS was refusing to apologize. The CBS article was the original message posted by Mech in the first place!

Can you please tell me where CBS "refused to apologize" or "stood by their previous story?" It appears to me that they simply chose not to update their original story with new information from their competitor's Nightlin program.

quote:

---

That kean was fearfully backtracking does not change a single word of the accurate quotes nor of the interview in which his very own words were presented. Almost anyone can be frightened into recanting an honest statement, as Kean proves so well.

---

Kean's statements on Nightline do not contradict or recant his original statements, nor do any of his statements say that the Bush Administration could have stopped 9/11. Can you provide me a reference to where you think he said that?

*** EDITED AT 12/20/03 10:54PM CST:

Re-reading your post I see you were referencing CBS Evening News. I assume that you saw some broadcast that said they stood by their original story even though they didn't (apparently) post that statement to their website. I didn't see CBS Evening News so I can't say whether or not they made a point of stating that they stood by their original story, but if that's what you were referring to then I'll concede that you weren't being deceptive--although I do think it would have been useful to include mention of the fact that your source was the CBS Evening News rather than just reposting a link to the original story which made it seem to me you were implying that that link somehow stated that CBS News was "refusing to apologize." (Which it didn't)

Nevertheless, I stand by my original question/statement: "Kean's statements on Nightline do not contradict or recant his original statements, nor do any of his statements say that the Bush Administration could have stopped 9/11. Can you provide me a reference to where you think he said that?

posted 12-20-2003 08:45 PM            

quote:

---

I already responded to you. I showed you a picture AND then disclosed the animated video you requested.

---

You miss my point.

If I understand your argument correctly you are saying that WTC6 blew up at 9:04am very soon after the second tower was impacted by the plane, but long before either tower collapsed. You then provide a clip of a dust cloud and say that it's WTC6 exploding. The evidence of that was that someone supposedly called CNN and confirmed the video of that dust cloud was taken at 9:04am--so it must be WTC6 exploding, which raises question.

My question is: If WTC6 exploded at 9:04am why is it that none of the following images--taken after the second plane impact--show any smoke or dust near the base of the towers? If WTC6 exploded at 9:04am there must be some image taken after 9:04am that shows smoke or dust or something coming from the exploded WTC6...?
http://www.september11news.com/AttackSkylineBridge.jpg http://www.september11news.com/AttackSkylineEmpire.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc_fires_dscn1768.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wp_wtc4.jpg

All of the above pictures taken after the second plane impact appear to show absolutely no smoke, dust, or haze near the base of the towers. If WTC6 exploded at 9:04am, can you provide any other photos taken after that time that show dust, smoke, haze, or anything that suggests a building at the base of the towers had exploded in the previous 30 minutes?

quote:

---

Besides, I claimed there was a suspicious smoke burst (after the second plane hit) long before YOU came here claiming the opposite. You engaged first so the burden of proof rests on YOUR shoulders.

---

What? heheh, that doesn't make any sense. Whether you made a claim before or after I contradicted you is unimportant to the debate.

You claim that WTC6 exploded at 9:04am. I have presented a number of images above that were clearly taken after 9:04am (since both towers are burning) yet show a total absence of smoke, dust or haze at the base of the towers which would be evident if WTC6 had recently exploded. Thus I am asking you simply: Why? Where is the smoke? Do you have any pictures that were taken when both buildings were standing and burning that shows any suggestion of smoke from where WTC6 would be?

If not, could it be that you are wrong and that WTC6 didn't explode at 9:04am?

quote:

---

The smoke is blowing in another direction in a second image, so there obviously was slight wind on the scene, and in the third image – the towers are already collapsing so MY smoke would already have dissipated.

---

Your smoke would have already dissipated? In half an hour?

Here are pictures post-9/11:

Later the same afternoon and evening: http://www.september11news.com/CNNAPLibertySkyline.jpg http://www.september11news.com/NYSkylineNightFireAftermath.jpg

Here's an aerial picture from 9/23, 12 days after the attack:
http://www.september11news.com/AAAAerialAftermathSept23.jpg

In all of these pictures there is clearly dust. Granted, WTC6 wasn't as tall as the Twin Towers, but you want me to believe that that dust completely dissipated so that other pictures taken within 30 minutes show nothing but "clear sky" below the impact zones of the towers? Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

In my images, the towers are clearly standing, nothing has fallen that could have created the burst, and the collapsing stage HAS NOT yet begun.

---

Can you repost the links to your graphics, then, because the only graphic I saw you post was http://www.intellex.com/~rigs/page1/wtc/wtc6.gif and it is so blurry it is not clear whether both buildings are actually still standing.

Building 6 isn't even mentioned on Cooperative Research's 9/11 timeline (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/dayof911.html). That's a conspiracy website.

quote:

---

How about you show me a picture, from the correct street angle that includes WTC 6 and WTC 7, just after 9:00 a.m., with no cloud burst.

---

I'll look, but keep in mind that lack of a picture does not prove that you are right. It proves that I can't find a picture.

Nevertheless, the dust cloud in the blurry picture you provide is large enough that it is simply not reasonable to expect me to believe that that dust cloud would have so completely dissipated in less than 30 minutes that there is no sign of it in any post-9:04am pictures.

quote:

---

You act as if there are people on every corner in NYC with cameras handy 24/7.

---

I don't act like that, but if you are now demanding that I produce a picture that includes "the correct street angle that includes WTC 6 and WTC 7, just after 9:00 a.m" then apparently YOU are acting like there is someone on every corner in NYC with cameras handy 24/7.

Nevertheless, you can't produce that blurry picture with a large dust cloud rising up and seriously expect anyone to believe that that same dust cloud wouldn't have been visible in SOME other picture taken after 9:04am and before the first tower collapsed. That's simply unreasonable unless it is some magical dust cloud that, unlike the other towers, dissippated in minutes rather than weeks.

In the meantime, I'll look for some pictures for you. But you cannot ignore the pictures I have already presented. You cannot show me a dust cloud/explosion as big as the one you showed and then expect me to believe it is going to be invisible in every other post-9:04am picture out there. That's just not credible.

The most believable explanation is the picture you posted was in fact of one of the towers collapsing and not taken at 9:04am. That would explain the complete lack of any other dust clouds visible in any other pictures prior to the collapse of the first tower.

posted 12-20-2003 10:42 PM            

There was a fairly large fire going on there, explosions are not uncommon. You now suggest the very people with the ability to pull off this event, started setting off explosive devices 30 minutes before the first collapse.

Get a grip on reality.

posted 12-20-2003 10:51 PM            

As far as i'm concerned..that is not the way it happened. Period.

posted 12-21-2003 12:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by A firefighter:
You now suggest the very people with the ability to pull off this event, started setting off explosive devices 30 minutes before the first collapse. Get a grip on reality.

---

I think you hit the nail on the head, Firefighter. It often seems that conspiracists are so intent coming up with new conspiracies that they forget to consider whether what they're saying makes sense.

Essentially, it comes down to wanting us to believe that "someone" (pick evil person(s), government agency, or company) was able to pull off this whole thing and fool everyone, yet they messed up by blowing up a building 30 minutes early, and placing explosives in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 in such a way as to look like a controlled demolition when a couple nice big bombs somewhere in the structure would have been easier to "plant" and presumably been more convincing since it would look "uncontrolled." Why didn't they do that? Because they didn't want collateral damage from the collapses--but why? If they don't care about the lives of the people in the planes and WTC, why would they be bothered with a little more collateral damage from an "uncontrolled" collapse if it makes the whole thing more convincing?

Debating conspiracy theories is fun and that's why I do it. But it's important not to lose sight of the fact that when all is said and done it should still make sense. And regardless of how many interesting factoids the conspiracists come up with, it usually adds up to something that makes less sense and has more "holes" than the publically accepted version of events.

posted 12-21-2003 12:29 AM            

Yes...Convenient isn't it?

Ever consider it to be a FORGERY Professor?

A forgery say...like a Boeing aircraft actually hit the Pentagon?

The only "conspiracy" THEORY..is the claims put out by our government and controlled corporate media about Sept.11th.

------
http://www.letsroll911.org/

posted 12-21-2003 12:48 AM            

Nobody was suggesting the controlled demolition took half an hour.

But
Now that you suggest it though;
The huge explosion needed to destroy the core at it's base* would be less noticeable if timed to coincide with the impact far above.

Who could have planned on somebody surviving to talk about it.

Thanks for the suggestion.

The huge explosion of 1993 didn't bring the building down,
Just weakened it at the base.

And created a void for upper floors to collapse into.

Wow, a debunker just helped fit another piece of the puzzle together!

Thanks!

=======================================
Here is what the photographic, video and eyewitness evidence indicates:

When the tower began to fall over, in the direction of greatest damage;
Somebody threw the switch to bring the building straight down in an implosion.

To save lives!

The photo evidence clearly shows the upper section begins to topple over,
then the core is imploded causing the spire to fall into the void,
then charges cut supports on progressively lower floors.
First the core, to pull the roof and walls in, instead of letting them fall outwards as is normal.
Then the base of each floor's outer columns are cut simultaneously
(those flashes of light and puffs of smoke that blew out windows)allowing the columns to topple into the core void.

The company that would have installed the focused linear shaped charges, would have studied the aftermath of the explosion in the basement parking garage, and structural integrity after the 1993 terrorist bombing.

Controlled Demolition Inc.
Got the contract to quickly haul off the evidence before fire investigators got to look at thsoe columns and joists.

Controlled Demolition Inc. is who'd imploded the two buildings I watched fall into their own footprint years before.

They had explained how critical it is to get all charges placed precisely and detonated in the proper sequence, or the building falls over instead of into itself.

They are the company that convinced me
that buildings fall outward to the side of greatest damage.

They are also the best qualified company to implode a high rise in a controlled demolition.
That's their field of expertise.

posted 12-21-2003 02:59 AM            

110 stories. Burning debris crashing into other buildings like flaming dominoes as many of those high rises collapse also, spreadingflaming debris, and so on and an out of contro firestorm.

There could have been a raging inferno beyond any possibility of control.

Smart Civil Defense would see that possibility and ask the experts.

Who knew then, and knows more now than anyone else in the world about collapsing high rise and skyscrapers?

Controlled Demolition Inc.

Just as in the speech I heard at the site of two CDI controlled demolitions:
CDI would explain how buildings, regardless of height, collapse into the area of greatest damage.

Only fools would allow the possibility of an uncontrolled collapse with massive lawsuits by all those building owners, all those survivor families.

How manycould die in an uncontrolled collapse of flaming debris and the fire storm it could cause.
50,000?
One hundred thousand?
Many many more if a fire raged out of control for days.

Wait until the very last minute.
Until that section of top floors began to topple over the side...
Then the last resort installed in 1994 or 1995 perhaps would be executed.

Bring it down into it's own footprint.
minimize collateral damage.

Look at the statistics at that link also.
up to 50,000 people could have been there.
The WTC manager told Peter Jennings that morning that normally there should have been between 15 and 25 thousand people in the towers.
Only about 4,000 people died and quite a few of them had come in from outside in rescue efforts.

Never had so few showed up for work on a Tuesday.
How coincidentally lucky!
The WTC manager himself had taken the day off to register his child in school a week late.
How coincidentally lucky!

All those hijacked airplanes had very few passengers also.
If two stood, the pasengers and crew of all four could have fit into one 767.
How coincidentally lucky!

Off topic: could it be a lot of people had a bad feeling that morning and changed their plans.
I woke up with an urge to tape the news for example.
How coincidentally lucky!

posted 12-21-2003 06:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Nobody was suggesting the controlled demolition took half an hour.

---

I think what firefighter was saying that is if WTC6 exploded at 9:04am that would indicate someone triggered those explosives 30 minutes "early."

Of course, I think it was suggested that it was a stray missile that hit WTC6--even though the video and images seem to clearly suggest that the object, if it existed, traveled south to noth and continued on well beyond WTC and did not, in fact, hit WTC6. That the "object" did not impact WTC6 is supported by the conspiracy website at http://www.glennbeck.com/news/06062002.shtml.

And even if it was a stray missile, it is funny that conspiracy theorists would bring it up since that would imply that NORAD had responded and was on the scene by the time of the second impact, they just missed the target. Strange that conspiracy theorists would raise that possibility since most of the conpsiracy usually seems to rest on Bush and NORAD not responding and a missile at WTC6 at 9:04am would seem to kill that aspect of the supposed conspiracy.

quote:

---

But Now that you suggest it though;
The huge explosion needed to destroy the core at it's base* would be less noticeable if timed to coincide with the impact far above.

---

Except for the thousands of people that streamed out of the second tower after the impact at 9:03am. You'd think maybe they'd have noticed it, wouldn't you?

quote:

---

The huge explosion of 1993 didn't bring the building down, Just weakened it at the base. And created a void for upper floors to collapse into. Wow, a debunker just helped fit another piece of the puzzle together!

---

What kind of a conclusion is that? Are you saying that the 1993 attack weakened the base and created a void--that was never fixed or repaired in 8 years--for the building to conveniently fall into? Is that what conspiracy theories are coming to now?

quote:

---

When the tower began to fall over, in the direction of greatest damage;
Somebody threw the switch to bring the building straight down in an implosion. To save lives!

---

Hmm, well if that's the case then those people should be thanked, not condemned as an evil conspiracy. Good planning!

quote:

---

The photo evidence clearly shows the upper section begins to topple over,
then the core is imploded causing the spire to fall into the void, then charges cut supports on progressively lower floors.

---

The photo evidence shows the top of the building leaning slightly and then the whole thing coming down. What happened to the core and anything inside the building is speculation. And to think that a 110-story building collapsing is an orderly event that can be predicted with any accuracy is a wild assumption.

quote:

---

They had explained how critical it is to get all charges placed precisely and detonated in the proper sequence, or the building falls over instead of into itself.

---

Consider me ignorant: Can you please provide me a reference of any modern building ever "falling over" or "tipping over?" It can be in a controlled demolition or in an uncontrolled fire. Just please provide me with any reference whatsoever to a collapsing building ever tipping over? I've looked, but unfortunately Google is so filled with conspiracy sites I can't find anything not related to 9/11 on that topic.

quote:

---

Wait until the very last minute.
Until that section of top floors began to topple over the side... Then the last resort installed in 1994 or 1995 perhaps would be executed.

---

posted 12-21-2003 07:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
Assuming there were self destruct mechanisms in place wouldn't you think they would've warned emergency personal first? if after all it was a measure to save lives with such pre planning (doubt it).

---

I agree with you, professor. I don't think there were any self-destruct charges in the towers.

I was just pointing out the rediculousness of Shatoga's new theory and how it doesn't make sense when viewed through the eyes of a conspiracist (since the charges would then imply no wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration) and doesn't make sense to a non-conspiracist either (since, as you said, you'd think the emergency teams would know about the charges). So any way you cut it, Shatoga is just not making sense.

Or maybe we are just misunderstanding him??

posted 12-22-2003 03:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
I agree with you, professor. I don't think there were any self-destruct charges in the towers.

---

Look up "firebrake" to understand the sacrifice of a few to save the many.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:

I was just pointing out the rediculousness of Shatoga's new theory

---

The stereotype of a NY landlord torching his own building to get an insurance payoff,

as the new owner of the WTC got such a payoff, and rescued his overextended aussie conglomerate with that payoff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
and how it doesn't make sense when viewed through the eyes of a conspiracist (since the charges would then imply no wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
you'd think the emergency teams would know about the charges).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
So any way you cut it, Shatoga is just not making sense.

Or maybe we are just misunderstanding him??

---

BUT!:

Lexta2000 comes up with the missing piece!

Like Reverend Moon's "Unification" church.

Here is the Lexta2000 inspired alternate plausible theory:

July 24, 2001;
Frank Lowery's (*rightwing Australian magnate) heavily leveraged Silverstein Properties/ Westfield America agreed to pay $400 million for the lease on the WTC complex.
source: The Jerusalem Post on Sept. 12, 2001
Westfield was insured against terrorist attacks and its earnings will not be materially affected.
In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange the retail chain said that "investment in the retail component of the World Trade Center is fully insured for both capital and loss of income," adding "the insurance coverage includes acts of terrorism.<

Means Opportunity Motive
MOM: He acquired the property, evicted the tennants, brought in his crew.
Found the building was already wired for a controlled demolition soon after the WTC 1993 bombing evoked fears of the tower falling over onto surrounding blocks.

Already virtually owning the Australian government, he was sympathetic to Bush. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588322537.html?from=storyrhs

September 1st 2001 a press release announces that results of the media count of all Florida ballots by the National Opinion Research Center at the University Chicago
is to be released in ten days.
Other news caused them to delay the release for two months.

here is a guy who fervently supports Bush, hears the media count will show Gore won Florida.
He quickly seeks a plan to divert attention away from the count's results.

A building already wired for demolition and lots of debt.

Landlords sometimes torch their buildings to collect insurance money.

Warn a few close friends to not be there in mid September:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/09/AmericanFreePress0902.html
>AFP has learned from a reliable source in the shipping industry that Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc. broke the lease when it vacated the rented offices on the 16th and 17th floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center shortly before the Sept. 11 disaster.
According to the source, Zim's WTC office space had been leased until the end of the year and the company lost $50,000 when it suddenly pulled out in the beginning of September.
AFP repeatedly contacted Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc. at its new American headquarters in Norfolk, Va., to inquire about the company's pulling out of its WTC lease early.
AFP was told that the only person who could discuss the matter was the company president, Shaul Cohen-Mintz, who was said to be unavailable until Dec. 4.
AFP also contacted the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the original owner of the World Trade Center, and was told to contact Silverstein Properties, owner of the World Trade Center since July 24.<

posted 12-22-2003 03:47 AM            

You are a fanatic rightwing partisan who believes the end justifies the means.
Now the end is to rescue your failing enterprise and divert attention from the count of all Florida ballots that would show Bush lost the elcetion and is not legitimately President...
You have only ten days...

It was Arab terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993, but how to set it up in only ten days?

The CIA is a partisan rightwing organization thanks to the ethnic outreach efforts to bring former Nazis over to help fight communism.

George HW Bush had been CIA ever since the end of WWII and had been Director of the CIA under Ford.

Pentagon contacts brought out Operation Northwoods:
"We've has this plan on the backburner since Johnson used if for the "Gulf of Tonkin" fake attack.

Project Mongoose Appendix A calls for bombings and airplane hijackings by the US Military, to be blamed on another country
as a pretext for an invasion. http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/bamford.htm http://www.attackonamerica.net/operationnorthwoods.htm

(I have the book the NSA authorized bamford to write)

Somebody had watched the pilot episode of "the Lone Gunman" in which the DOD used remote control to take over a jumbo jet and fly it into the WYC.

Perfect.

thank God for fans who archive information excised from official records: http://www.insidethex.co.uk/transcrp/tlg179.htm
>BYERS: Find something?
KIMMY: Yep. I wound up in some government think-tank's upload directory. Here's your scenarios, ladies.
BYERS: It's in clear. Counter-terrorism scenarios. War games developed for the Defence Department.
FROHIKE: What's Scenario 12-D?
(Kimmy clicks on the file. A dialog box on the screen opens.)
FILE INFO
scenario_12D.txt
Domestic Airline In-Flight Terrorist Act
LANGLY: Airline terrorism? That doesn't make sense. Your father was murdered over a war game?
BYERS: Download it.

(Kimmy taps away. The screen shows
DOWNLOAD:
RETRIEVING: uploads/scenarios/scenario_12D.txt <
>BYERS: What is scenario 12-D?
(BYERS SNR doesn't respond.)
BYERS: We know it's a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.
BYERS SNR: Because it's no longer a game.
BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?
BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.
BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You're saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?
BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction ...
BYERS: For what possible gain?
BYERS SNR: The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you'll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamouring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.
BYERS: I can't believe this. This is about increasing arms sales?
(BYERS SNR nods.) <
>SCENE 14
(Airport terminal. An tannoy is announcing departing flights. A monitor is displaying flight details.)
Flight 265
Boston
Departs 6:50 PM
Gate 34. <
>LANGLY (VO): I've hacked into the flight control system output.
CUT BACK TO:
(LANGLY and FROHIKE are in front of their computer. They are running some systems monitoring software.)
FROHIKE: With a little bit of help.
LANGLY: It's what the brains of the plane is telling the little black box.
FROHIKE: Course, heading, attitude, hold, yaw, axis, stabilisation (pauses) what? (points at screen) what the heck's that?
LANGLY: Is that what it looks like?
FROHIKE: I think it is what it looks like.
CUT TO:
(On the plane with BYERS.)
BYERS: What does "what" look like?
LANGLY: Modem protocol. Remote access. Somebody on the ground's flying your plane.
CUT TO:
(DOD monitoring station. The DOD operator we saw earlier is monitoring the Lone Gunmen's progress. Helm is with him.)
DOD OPERATOR: Bogey, sir.
HELM: Keep your course.
CUT BACK TO:
(Onboard the aircraft.)
BYERS: We need to know our flightplan.
CUT BACK TO:
(LANGLY and FROHIKE are checking the flight data.)
FROHIKE: I'm mapping the data now.
(The monitor changes to show a map. The map increases in detail and a line showing the flightplan is superimposed on it. The line stops at a point on the map and the target building is highlighted. FROHIKE and LANGLY look at each other.)
LANGLY: Byers. Your flight's going to make an unscheduled stop. In exactly 22 minutes.
(Cut to FROHIKE and LANGLY.)
FROHIKE: Corner of Liberty and Washington, Lower Manhattan.
CUT TO:
(Onboard the aircraft. BYERS and BYERS SNR are trying to keep their voices low.)
BYERS: World Trade Center. (He turns to his father) They're going to crash it into the World Trade Center. < http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/09/145289_comment.php#145399

>Missive From A Lone Gunman
The following letter appeared in the December 2002 edition (#165) of Fortean Times < http://www.forteantimes.com
>, the self-titled "Journal of Strange Phenomena", a publication I've always thought of as closely related to the less mainstream and altogether more underground publication of the Gunmen. Whilst the facts are well-documented, the author is noteworthy and the concluding lamentation is particularly poignant for this UK fan where the series has happily been aired, but minus the pilot:
Having just finished your article on 9/11 conspiracy theories http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/000_2002index.shtml
>, I thought I'd share with you my own peculiar relationship between the conspiracies and the events. I was one of the lead actors on a short-lived television series that aired on the Fox network in the United States. It was called The Lone Gunmen and intended as a spin-off from the popular Fox series The X-Files. The so-called Lone Gunmen are three conspiracy geeks who publish an underground newspaper named The Lone Gunman (hence our show title).
Although our series aired in the spring of 2001, we had shot the pilot episode in March 2000. The plot was fairly simple: the Lone Gunmen uncover and defeat a government conspiracy to fly a commercial jet plane into one of the towers of the World Trade Center via ground-based computer control of the jet's auto-pilot. The intention was to blame a foreign, 'terrorist' nation for the bombing, and thus encourage the US to enter into a war against it - all to guarantee weapons sales for the US military-industrial complex. In the TV episode, of course, our characters save the day in the nick of time, regaining control of the plane just as it soars over the towers.
We shot 12 more episodes over the winter of 2000-2001, and they all aired on Fox that spring, but in the end our series was not renewed for a second season. I continued to work on The X-Files, and I was in Los Angeles on 11 September, having just finished working on an episode of that show. I was supposed to fly home to Canada that very day. I was woken about 8:30 by a phone call from the limo company contracted to drive me to Los Angeles Airport (LAX). "This is your limo driver," the voice told me. "You won't be flying home today."
"Why not," I asked, groggy from sleep.
"All the airports in the US have been shut down."
It took a moment or two to process this statement. I could believe that LAX had been closed for some reason. But all the airports? In the whole country? "What? Why?"
"Some one has flown a plane into the World Trade Center."
They say that most people thought it was a joke when they first heard of the attack. You can understand why that was my first thought. Luckily I was too sleepy to laugh out loud. (Actually, I thought it was a pretty poor joke.) I can only add that once I learned the truth, I experienced an eerie terror, as if I had seen the future, and not understood it until it was too late.
Assuming the idea for flying a plane into the Twin Towers by the remote control of a secret government agency was original to our writers, it had been floating around for a year and a half at least before the actual attack. Not a lot of viewers saw our show (several million maybe saw the pilot), but I have no doubt that the idea - or cultural 'meme' - was immediately available once the shock of the attack wore off.
Of course, it also means that the idea of terrorists flying a jet into a New York landmark was not so unthinkable as it seemed in the days afterwards. As far as news items being 'scrubbed,' I think it's safe to say that our pilot, if not our entire series, will never be seen on network television anywhere. Ever. A strange, awful confluence of pulp culture and reality...
BRUCE HARWOOD
aka 'Byers' of the Lone Gunmen, Fox Broadcasting, Los Angeles <
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
a Plausible scenario.

so combine rightwingers worried about bush's Presidency needing a Wag-the-Dog war to boost him into polularity.
worried about the vote count that would likely show bush lost.

a ealthy landlord willing to commit insurance fraud to amortize his debts.
a military willing to fake an attack on America as a pretext for war.

ADD either hijackers for remote control and crash airplanes in a high profile distraction/ peral harbor like "unite behind our President and march off to war" event.

Stir in buildings wired for demolition and add bombs like used in 1993.
combine extremism greed and end justifies the means pragmatism.
viola Means motive opportunity.

And the slap dash speed of preparations made everything obvious to sceptics.

Bandage holes in the scenario with pronouncements by leladership and in house (in the pocket) experts.

You have america's Reichstag Fire.
And the most successfull part of the Operation northwoods fraud?

posted 12-22-2003 04:04 AM            

quote:

---

Shatoga said:
That statement demonstrates a total lack of understanding of civil defense. Look up "firebrake" to understand the sacrifice of a few to save the many.

---

I understand the concept, I just don't see any evidence that it occurred. And I believe the firemen racing into the WTC towers would be aware if there was a risk of some fail-safe being detonated and bringing down the towers.

quote:

---

Your partisanship is showing! YOU are the conspiracist. I am merely following the evidence to construct a plausible explanation for proven facts.

---

May I ask you what is not plausible about a number of Muslim terrorists--who have been blowing themselves up in Israel for years--finally targetting the only country that guarantees that Israel, their motal enemy, will continue to exist?

quote:

---

IF they knew about the charges they would not have entered the buildings in a rescue attempt.

---

EXACTLY! So you're suggesting the firemen would be unaware of a common civil defense technique implemented in the towers after 1993? That's silly. If there was such a fail-safe in the towers local emergency folk would know. They'd probably be the ones to operate such a fail-safe when they deemed collapse was inevitable. The fact that they raced into the structure tells me they didn't know it existed which, in anything but a dark twisted conspiracy theory, would suggest that the fail-safe charges did NOT exist.

quote:

---

Means Opportunity Motive

---

Means Opportunity Motive does not equal a conviction unless evidence supports it, and everything you are stating is speculation and circumstantial. It is not evidence of wrongdoing or proof of your theory.

Other than that, please forgive me while I ignore your discourse on fictional television material as being irrelevant to the debate.