9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[WouldBe]

Well then you can't possibly make the argument that the lower steel would have to have been cut else there would have been a long collapse time, can you? You are contradicting yourself where it suits.

You were the one that made the claim that thermate was used to weaken the steel supports.

I followed your logic, pointing out that lowers steels would be thicker and therefore would require longer to cut through to weaken them. Therefore the charges in the lower floors would have to be set off before charges on the upper floors otherwise the towers would have taken a lot longer to collapse.

 

[WouldBe]

In the audio interview Steve Jones mentions he came across a patent for a device specifically for efficiently cutting lines through steel using thermite.

Funny that but one of the conspiraloon sites I've just looked at quotes the patent number for the grenades I've already talked about as being part of the prof's proof.

 

[editor]

Given all that, seriously how would potentially 1.5 tons of explosives be smuggled in, emplaced, wired up and detonated without ANYONE in the WTC knowing about it?

Do you really expect a serious answer to that rational question?

I've been arguing for - eek! - years that it would be utterly impossible to wire up a working, busy, enormous office block like the WTC with enough explosives to bring down the place without a single soul noticing.

Unless 'they' used invisible operatives invisibly installing invisible explosives, of course.

Is that what happened, Jazzz?

 

[WouldBe]

Plus you would have to be very careful with thermite as the aluminium powder is very reactive and will react with water. So if it's installed too early it may have 'gone off' before it's required.

 

[Techno303]

And to get it perfectly right twice, one after the other, on the very first attempt.

(Loving Jazzz’s use of Brainiac as a credible scientific source!)

 

[look again]

That story is over two years old, FFS.And that wildly speculative story is over a year old.

So people should just keep on ignoring them?

I guess you think this letter, signed by 25 former US government employees, complaining about the findings of the 9/11 commission should continue to be ignored aswell?

http://www.pogo.org/m/hsp/hsp-911commission-040913.pdf

When calling for accountability, we are referring not to quasi-innocent mistakes caused by “lack of imagination” or brought about by ordinary “human error”. Rather, we refer to intentional actions or inaction by individuals responsible for our national security, actions or inaction dictated by motives other than the security of the people of the United States. The report deliberately ignores officials and civil servants who were, and still are, clearly negligent and/or derelict in their duties to the nation.

Strong choice of words don't you think?

 

[look again]

You can have cold fire. It may sound odd, but it depends on the chemicals being burnt. I think the poster is trying to say that the aviation fuel (paraffin) does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. I think that's fairly well accepted.

Another point that should be well accepted, but doesn't seem to be, is that the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes. Even Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the NIST study, said: “The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes”. The NIST Report itself says : “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”

So we are left with office fires as the official explanation for totally destroying two 110 storey steel-framed skyscrapers, in virtually free-fall speed. The WTC was well able to handle an office fire in 1975, which burned for over three hours, without causing any structural damage.

I hasten to add it's also pretty irrelevent. There was lots of other material, both inside the buildings and on the planes that oxidises at much higher temperatures. Heck, even iron will burn, if it gets hot enough (in the presence of sufficient oxygen, of course).

Well according to tests carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures.

Any other claims by people supporting the official story are forced to rely on mere speculation, not backed up by any real evidence, that the steel reached higher temperatures.

 

[look again]

He's a shit pilot then - I used to live next door to a guy who flew Tornados with the RAF then flew Jumbos for a living. I asked him about these "it would have taken a highly skilled pilot" claims years ago and he reckoned it was a piece of piss.

If flying an airliner in such an unconventional manner was so easy, then why did the hijackers go to all the trouble of going to flight schools? and in doing so seriously increase their chances of being caught?

The alleged pilot of flight 77, Hani Hanour was apparently unable to even control a single seater plane a few months before 9/11, so what are the odds he dramatically improved in such a short space of time, to such an extent he had no problem flying an airliner?

 

[look again]

Maybe, maybe not (if it actually happened, of course).

Well the information came to light as the result of a government investigative report, so are you suggesting they are lying?

You are aware of the international protocols regarding the use of evidence from pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. in relation to Air Accident Investigation aren't you? They are aimed at ensuring that the people involved can talk freely without the fear of their evidence being used in any Court proceedings, in order to ensure that there is no barrier, real or perceived, from them telling Air Accident Investigators exactly what happened so that steps can be taken to avoid it happening again.

Whilst these protocols should not have impacted on this investigation, I suspect that the controllers involved knew of the "usual" procedures and processes (in which destruction of the interview records once the Air Accident Investigators have finished with them may well have been part) and the mention of the union official being involved strenghens that possibility.

The problem with your arguement is that, there were no aircraft accident investigations into any of the 4 planes lost that day. Federal Aviation regulations in Part 121, governs the operations of all scheduled airlines that operate inside the United States. In the case of each aircraft loss that occurred on 9/11, the regulations are very clear and unambiguous, investigations were required, and the reports would have covered the loss circumstances in excruciating detail, including all collateral damage incurred.

The well-known "Black Boxes" were reported to have been found, but were immediately confiscated and seem to have since, disappeared.

What have they got to hide?

 

[look again]

Oh for fuck's sake, we're back to this again without a shred of new evidence being produced.

Here. Read this and produce some credibly sourced arguments to prove they're all wrong:
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html

The 9/11 commission stated that the south tower came down in 10 seconds.

 

[fela fan]

This thread is now starting to look like yet another fact-free rerun of the same old bollocks, so unless someone comes up with some credible new evidence soon, the bin awaits.

deja vu of deja vu.

Must be some good stuff for me to read, better plough on for this new credible evidence...

 

[fela fan]

That story is over two years old, FFS.And that wildly speculative story is over a year old.

So the age of a story deems it to be factually incorrect does it??? Bloody hell, you have developed some interesting ways of ignoring the obvious. A story, once it is old, cannot be correct.

Wow.

 

[fela fan]

... and your laughable hypocrisy and penchant for disrupting threads has been duly noted.

I didn't know you were a copper.

 

[detective-boy]

None of the four flights have been subject to an Air Accident Investigation.

And?

My point is simply that the air traffic controllers would be aware of the usual procedures for being interviewed after and incident and (no doubt) VERY well aware of any parts of the process designed to protect their interests.

 

[detective-boy]

Well the information came to light as the result of a government investigative report, so are you suggesting they are lying?

No. I'm merely qualifying my comment because I have not seen a primary source for the information.

This would be a good hint for many of the conspiraloon Miss Marples, by the way

 

[editor]

Strong choice of words don't you think?

That two year old document contains nothing to suggest that the signatories believe the bonkers conspiraloon theories that are regularly trotted out here, so what's your point?

 

[editor]

I didn't know you were a copper.

If you've nothing useful or relevant to offer, kindly keep your pointless pearls of wisdom to yourself please.

 

[kyser_soze]

Think is Look Again, all of us sceptics want those questions answered - why there was no ATI, where the Black Boxes were etc etc.

What we are not prepared to do is extrapolate from those questions into some speculative world where the towers were bought down by pre-packed demolition charges, where anyone other than potentially a few rouge intel or army officers acting under their own initiative (which has a long history in the US) might jhave been involved...but as yet there is little or no evidence of something like that happening so while we want answers to the same questions, unlike say Jazz, or Fela or Squegee I for one would be more interested in actual evidence and answers rather than reams and reams of extrapolation, bad science and speculative nonsense that makes some of the Kennedy conspiracies look positively convincing.

Plus, you haven't been having the same argument on here since 2001 - Ed, Tarannau and a few others have, and seeing the same speculations come up again and again with 'new' evidence which is nothing of the sort gets a little tedious.

So before you go off on some rant about how we're ignoring the 'obvious', we're not. However, absence of answers does not proove guilt - and in all honesty if ever I was on court and the jury accpeted the same approach that absence of evidence = guilt I'd be extrememly worried...

 

[kyser_soze]

BTW - have any of you guys actually read the TEXT of that letter? It's a list of complaints about whistleblowers being ostracised, poor administration within intelligence, police and military services, the abysmal communication between the 3 and senior level bureaucrats wanting to cover their asses (as the Pentagon did, but got found out)

There is NO implication in that letter that there was any kind of conspiracy at work; that there was a plan within USG that would enable a LIHOP scenario, nor is there any mention, implication of speculation that there was a conspiracy.

So other than criticsing the commission for it's shortcomings (of which there were many), it certainly doesn't serve as any kind of evidence toward a conspiracy. What it DOES complain about is the basis for setting up the commission and that there was much testimony that was made at the hearings but not included in the report.

 

[ZAMB]

There are other expert interviews on this topic on http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php

I thought the one by Kevin Ryan was interesting, as he was an engineer and lab. manager for the company that had originally tested the WTC components and had access to the testing data.

http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=132

Lies About the World Trade Center by NIST and Underwriters Laboratory

Interview with Kevin Ryan. Kevin Ryan is a former employee of Underwriters Laboratory which certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center. Ryan wrote a letter to Frank Gayle of NIST, questioning the incongruence between laboratory testing, and conclusions drawn in the official government NIST report. After Ryan's questions became public, he was terminated.

 

[editor]

"After Ryan's questions became public, he was terminated."

Bit harsh, that.

 

[look again]

BTW - have any of you guys actually read the TEXT of that letter?

I doubt it, as to some it's supposedly just old news, that should be ignored.

There is NO implication in that letter that there was any kind of conspiracy at work; that there was a plan within USG that would enable a LIHOP scenario, nor is there any mention, implication of speculation that there was a conspiracy.

Did you miss this part?

When calling for accountability, we are referring not to quasi-innocent mistakes caused by “lack of imagination” or brought about by ordinary “human error”. Rather, we refer to intentional actions or inaction by individuals responsible for our national security, actions or inaction dictated by motives other than the security of the people of the United States.

They are basically accusing people in the US government of treason.

So other than criticsing the commission for it's shortcomings (of which there were many), it certainly doesn't serve as any kind of evidence toward a conspiracy. What it DOES complain about is the basis for setting up the commission and that there was much testimony that was made at the hearings but not included in the report.

Well when the commission was stalled for more than a year, controlled by the US government who even tried to appoint Kissinger to head it, and was obstructed at every turn, with the findings full of holes, yet their complaints have been ignored.

At least we can still rely on journalists and the media to do their job.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Did you miss this part?

When calling for accountability, we are referring not to quasi-innocent mistakes caused by “lack of imagination” or brought about by ordinary “human error”. Rather, we refer to intentional actions or inaction by individuals responsible for our national security, actions or inaction dictated by motives other than the security of the people of the United States.

They are basically accusing people in the US government of treason.

You, sir, are a fucking moron.

"Motives other than the security of the people of the US" does not mean that they were working to degrade this security merely that they had something else, like covering their arses, in front of it. This is not the same as saying they strapped those pods to the wings of the plane and flew it by remote into the towers.

 

[squeegee]

You, sir, are a fucking moron.

"Motives other than the security of the people of the US" does not mean that they were working to degrade this security merely that they had something else, like covering their arses, in front of it. This is not the same as saying they strapped those pods to the wings of the plane and flew it by remote into the towers.

How do you know it means that? Did you write it? It can mean either or both.

 

[look again]

Think is Look Again, all of us sceptics want those questions answered - why there was no ATI, where the Black Boxes were etc etc.

Do you not think it is highly suspicious that there are so many of these important unanswered questions?

What we are not prepared to do is extrapolate from those questions into some speculative world where the towers were bought down by pre-packed demolition charges

Well according to tests carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures.

These findings, which are based on real evidence and not just speculation or wishful thinking, raises more very important questions. Such as, is 250C hot enough for the steel to suffer a serious loss of strength, which would lead to a total collapse, in virtually free-fall speed?

The official report takes into account the impact of the planes, with the WTC being one of the very few buildings ever built to withstand the impact of an airliner, and instead concentrates on speculating that the fireproofing was removed by the impact. No evidence that this even happened, so basically the official theory is that the heat from the fires weakened the steel enough to cause the sudden and total collapse of three massive buildings.

Is this likely, taking into account the south tower was only on fire for 56 mins?

If we are to believe the "pancake theory", then what happened to these 47 massive central core columns?

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4830/wtccore5vz.jpg

The pancake theory also fails miserably when trying to explain the speed of the collapses, which were roughly at the rate of 10 floors per second.

As for building 7 the only real evidence we have is the footage of the building coming down, which looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

Is there any real evidence to suggest the building came down in another way?

So before you go off on some rant about how we're ignoring the 'obvious', we're not. However, absence of answers does not proove guilt - and in all honesty if ever I was on court and the jury accpeted the same approach that absence of evidence = guilt I'd be extrememly worried...

Absence of evidence is a real problem for people genuinely interested in trying to make sense of what really happened that day, so ask yourself who has been responsible for quickly removing all the evidence?

If the US government haven't been trying to cover-up a massive conspiracy, you must admit they have been doing an incredibly good impression of exactly that?

 

[editor]

As for building 7 the only real evidence we have is the footage of the building coming down, which looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

And your expertise in this area is... what exactly?

None? Then perhaps you should read these articles based on sources who actually do know something about the subject: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Absence of evidence is a real problem for people genuinely interested in trying to make sense of what really happened that day, so ask yourself who has been responsible for quickly removing all the evidence?

What about the complete absence of evidence from the conspiraloons making wild claims?

But seeing as you're so interested in asking questions, take a look at this site and be sure to report back on the factual and scientific inaccuracies you find - ensuring that your sources are suitably qualified and credible, of course:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

 

[look again]

You, sir, are a fucking moron.

Why are you so angry?

Could you not have made your point without resorting to childish insults?

"Motives other than the security of the people of the US" does not mean that they were working to degrade this security merely that they had something else, like covering their arses, in front of it.

Their job is to protect and serve the public. Any other motives they may have is basically treason.

This is not the same as saying they strapped those pods to the wings of the plane and flew it by remote into the towers.

No need to bring your wild theories into the thread.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

How do you know it means that? Did you write it? It can mean either or both.

Well done! You're learning at bloody last!

look again: A hint for the future, if you make a stupid comment and someone pulls you up on it then you might want to back down rather than support it. While technically you may be right it's pretty damned clear what you meant and it wasn't arse covering. You found a line and tried to twist it to mean only one thing, instead of seeing it as a rather non specific comment, resulting in you reading the document to find that it does not support your fruitloopery.

 

[laptop]

So who was look again in a past life, then?

 

[look again]

And your expertise in this area is... what exactly?

I have a pair of eyes, and am honest enough to admit the footage of the building coming down looks exactly like many other videos of controlled demolitions.

Then perhaps you should read these articles based on sources who actually do know something about the subject:

I will when I get a chance, but is there any specific parts of the articles you think are relevant?

Just a quick look at those sites reveals they were written by William F. Jasper? Mike Williams? and the now legendary Benjamin Chertoff, who could not possibly be biased, right?

That popular mechanics magazine is just not credible, especially when we take into consideration their love affair with UFOs.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/search?searchKeywords=ufo

What about the complete absence of evidence from the conspiraloons making wild claims?

There are many people making wild claims about 9/11, who like you say have absolutely no evidence. All they do is discredit all the genuine sceptics who realise there are many serious problems with the official story.

Why don't you hold up the official story to the same level of scrutiny, including pointing out their absence of evidence?

Just one example is the alleged crash site of flight 93.

But seeing as you're so interested in asking questions, take a look at this site and be sure to report back on the factual and scientific inaccuracies you find - ensuring that your sources are suitably qualified and credible, of course:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

The only evidence there is statements from firefighters on the scene, which the official story supporters have completely ignored when they described numerous explosions in the lower floors of the WTC. So all of a sudden they are now totally reliable, when before they were all just confused?

Here is an account which contradicts their claims aswell. Indira Singh is a private pilot and a climber. Prior to 9/11, she volunteered as a civilian emergency medical technician, until she was injured at ground zero.

http://www.nowpublic.com/node/25975

IS: That I don’t know, I can’t attest to the validity of that, all I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock, they told us we had to move from that triage site, up to Pace University a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down, or being brought down.

BF: Did they actually use the words brought down, and who was it that was telling you this?

IS: The Fire Department, the Fire Department, and they did use the word, we’re gonna have to bring it down. And, for us, there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility.

Given the subsequent controversy over it, I don’t know. I’m not an engineer, all I know is that was my experience. We backed off a little bit to Pace University, there was another panic around 4 o’clock because, they were bringing the building down, and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running… I went back to One Liberty, which was further south of where I was before and there were triage sites set up in there… we were treating basically people who were on the pile digging for survivors, if there were any.