Bush admits to Explosives used at the WTC on 9-11. See, Hear, and Read it.

[Klimmer]

Bush's speech on 9/15/06 at the White House Rose Garden:

* 2 minutes into the speech he tells us “they” want to attack us again.
* 4 – 5 minutes in Bush tells us how the questioning (torture?) of Khalid Sheik Mohammed has led to the following information . . .

“The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. HE TOLD US THE OPERATIVES HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO ENSURE THAT THE EXPLOSIVES WENT OFF AT A HIGH -- A POINT THAT WAS HIGH ENOUGH TO PREVENT PEOPLE TRAPPED ABOVE FROM ESCAPING.”

See and hear it for yourself straight from the horse’s ass, oops . . . I mean mouth, at the white house.

The video from the white house:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.v.html

The transcript from the white house:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

Who is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and what did he do:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2811855.stm

Bush TELLS of planted EXPLOSIVES INSIDE THE WTC!:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2933


There you have it. Bush admits to now knowing explosives were placed in the WTC towers. He can’t escape the truth anymore (9-11 Truth Movement is spreading like wildfire) and looks for the nearest Patsy, thereby placing the blame of explosives squarely on Khalid and Al Queda (but we really know who Al CIA-duh is don’t we?)

Sorry, this criminal corrupt administration can’t have it both ways.

They didn’t investigate or ask questions about 9-11. All the physical evidence was quickly hauled-off, melted down, or thrown away in secure land-fills without forensic testing or investigations. Then under overwhelming political pressure they finally realize they must investigate, but then cherry-pick the 9-11 commission to do so. They publish a white-wash report that is little more useful than a door stop --- the 9-11 Commission Report. They have stone-walled, denied, and have used compromised scientists and engineers to back-up the official conspiracy hypothesis (OCH or OCT). All who have said time and again, what brought the towers down were commercial jets loaded with aviation fuel, and the hot fires led to weakening of the steel beam supports and then the floors pancaked to the ground nearly at the acceleration of free-fall. Yea, right. We aren’t buying it. Our eyes, our ears, and the many eye-witnesses there on 9-11 at the WTC towers don’t deceive us. Not to mention the fact Dr. Jones has found the chemical thumb-print of – Thermite and/or Thermate on pieces from the towers. It was controlled demolition that brought the towers down (including WTC 7 which wasn’t hit by aircraft), nearly at the acceleration rate of free-fall. Pancaking a building can't fall at this acceleration rate, it would take much longer. The commercial jets were just shock and awe.

And now you’re going to tell us that questioning (torturing?) Khalid Sheik Mohammed led to this new information, and as a result you need these “tools” to protect us from our enemies.

Sorry, Shrub but 9-11 is total MIHOP. We have known this now for sometime, and more and more people are waking up to this fact every day. What we need is protection from you and your criminal cabal administration, that pulled off this false-flag operation --- killing thousands of innocent Americans here on US soil, and over seas on foreign battle fields. All of it is based on lies --- all of it.

9-11 was an inside job, and the really scary thing is they want to do it again. Listen once more to Bush’s speech about 2 minutes in, if you didn’t get that. What I fear is the Bush Crime Family and these Neo-con Rethugs.

Now damn, that is really scary. :wow:

Edited: to fix some physics speak.

[Kagemusha]

1. You do realize that jet fluel is an explosive material, right?

And that Bush is a sloppy speaker?

But whatever. I won't convince anyone. I never do.

[Klimmer]

6. Did you watch the speech? He is often looking down at his notes.

He was reading from notes. At the moment he wasn't speaking off the cuff.

[Richard Steele]

9. Did you even READ your own post? He's not talking about 9/11 there.

[gkdmaths]

11. the guy can barely read anything

ever hear a radio address? I've heard more fluent second graders reading Tommy had a Dog.

[jberryhill]

32. Then why do you suppose...

...his notes contained this "admission".

Man, and for years this guy has been telling us about a new kind of weapon, and we just thought he couldn't pronounce "nuclear".

He's been trying to warn us for years about nucular weapons, and we just haven't been listening to him carefully enough.

[beam me up scottie]

44. !

:rofl:

[Ka hrnt]

93. Today in the Department of Misleading Headlines...

Please point out to me where the connection between "the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S" and specifically mentioning the WTC. Oh, that's right--there is none.

You might also note that the president is referring to how it would help prevent attacks. You might also want to note that the person we obtained this information from was captured in 2003. You might also want to rely on reliable sources in the future.

[Cant_wait_for_2008]

61. Jet Fuel=Kerosene. It is a FLAMMABLE, not an explosive. eom

[ChairmanAgnostic]

71. wrong

what is our latest weapon in our air force arsenal? (no, not christianity)

the fuel air bomb.
It vaporizes kerosene and ignites it, causing a HUGE blast.

Interesting thing about plastic explosives. They burn nicely and safely, not explosively. In fact, our troops in IraqNam have used C-4 as a flame source while cooking those putrid MREs. To blow C-4 up, you need another explosion to detonate it.

Every liquid fuel can explode. An explosion is nothing more than rapid oxidation of a fuel source. It is a matter of degree, the rate of burn. Slow burn? you can burn gas in your engine (which is run by mini-explosions) Fast burn? your car can explode.

[Ka hrnt]

92. Dead wrong.

As a chemistry teacher, I'm 99% convinced most of the CTers here don't even understand what an explosion is...

Hint: Gasoline burns. Gasoline vapor EXPLODES.

[orleans]

160. so you mean that bush meant to say

"He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the gasoline vapors went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping." ??

[tenseconds]

163. 56 minutes

Gasoline(kerosene) vapor explodes... 56 minutes before the South Tower collapsed. apples and oranges.

[Ka hrnt]

183. LOL

And that has what, exactly, to do regarding the topic I was addressing? I love the way CTers debate...

[tenseconds]

162. jet fuel

Jet fuel can't even heat up enough to compromise the column's strength at all.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. He meant that the planes were directed to hit the buildings high up.

But I understand how you could have arrived at your conclusion, articulation of an idea is not one of Bush's strong suits.

But sorry, your argument ain't going to sell.

[Klimmer]

40. Now you are putting words in Shrubs mouth that he didn't say . . .

can't do that. He was saying what Khalid said when questioned (or tortured?). He said explosives, not commercial jets. I'm being literal here.

By bringing it up, Bush is now acknowledging it, and by doing so he is placing it into the realm of possibility. Period.

We have known for a long time now, Bush is now just admitting it, while placing the blame on Khalid and Al Queda (Al CIA-duh).

[indepat]

73. A subliminal freudian slip (?) brings this into the realm of possibility

[Richard Steele]

3. You realize that reference was NOT to 9/11, right?

He was talking about PLANNED plots that never were carried out,
at least not yet.

He was NOT saying what you say he said.

[Klimmer]

50. No and Yes.

He wasn't talking specifically about 9-11 in this part below, but in general talking about the general plan:

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people."

But I do think he was referring to a plan of hitting high, and then a specific example of doing just that below. The only successful example is 9-11. He was talking about 9-11 at this very moment, it is the only thing that fits. This is what happened on 9-11, explosives set high but not at the top, did trap people from escaping. He said explosives, not commercial aircraft. Don't put words in his mouth or thoughts in his head. I'm being literal. He said it.

"HE TOLD US THE OPERATIVES HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO ENSURE THAT THE EXPLOSIVES WENT OFF AT A HIGH -- A POINT THAT WAS HIGH ENOUGH TO PREVENT PEOPLE TRAPPED ABOVE FROM ESCAPING.”


Also, ". . . the operatives had been instructed" is past tense and stated as though it had taken place. Also " . . . to ensure that the explosives went off . . ." can be read as Khalid was describing something that did happen "the explosives went off" not hoping to have happen or maybe sometime in the future. We know this happened on 9-11. Explosives were set high and trapped many people above those levels. After the aircraft slammed into the WTC towers, the explosives set in WTC towers 1 and 2 were CD from the top down.

[Brainster]

82. Read the Preceding Paragraph

Bush said:

The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

Since 9-11 was not disrupted, Bush appears to be referring to later plots.

[lala_rawraw]

68. he gave locations for all, but that...

that was out of no where

[SheilaT]

4. I keep on asking the questions

that if explosives were planted at the WTC, when was it done, how long did it take, why did no one notice?

And, any time I've seen video of buildings brought down by explosives, the explosions occur in numerous places up, down, and along the building, all going off at once. There's NOTHING like that in the collapses of the WTC, despite many claims that there are.

And yes, Bush is a very careless speaker. Way too much is made of his apparent claim to have seen the first plane crash on live TV. He was simply misspeaking about having watched (as we all did over and over) the endless replays of the second plane.

[Blackthorn]

7. Just to clarify

Quote:
And, any time I've seen video of buildings brought down by explosives, the explosions occur in numerous places up, down, and along the building, all going off at once. There's NOTHING like that in the collapses of the WTC, despite many claims that there are.

WRONG. I have never seen a controlled demolition where ALL the charges were detonated at the same time. That's not how controlled demolition works. The idea is to destroy the buildings structural "hot spots" in a specific order so the building falls in a predetermined way, nearly always into its own footprint. Watch Loose Change 2nd Edition. You can clearly see the explosive squibs detonating as the towers fall.

The logistics of how they did it are fairly inconsequential as the fact the towers fell at the speed of gravity PROVES it was a controlled demolition. Those questions will need to be answered, but they are not necessary for proving any argument.

[salvorhardin]

10. You keep saying that and yet... it doesn't make it so.

1) There is no such thing as "the speed of gravity". There is a gravitational acceleration however of ~9.81 m/s^2. That may seem like nitpicking but it is a fairly important nit to pick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration

2) The material in the debris cloud can be seen clearly falling at a faster rate than the building itself. The debris free of any forces save wind resistance is accelerating much closer to 9.81 m/s^2 than the building.

[Klimmer]

12. I'm a HS physics teacher. We assume the perspective of Earth . . .

unless otherwise noted. Very good. You know the difference between speed and acceleration. Yes, it is 9.8 m/s/s, or for you english unit types 32 ft/s/s. You are right. I will change the word "speed" to acceleration. I typed it fast. My bad?

[Richard Steele]

24. Well, you're obviously not an ENGLISH teacher...

If you were, you might have noticed that the paragraph
you cut-n-pasted DOESN'T say what you are claiming it does.

[Cameron27]

20. salvorhardin

You just posted an actual scientific fact,... with a link...to a site without strangely colored words and odd punctuation!

I'm almost giddy.

:toast:

[beam me up scottie]

21. He is great, isn't he?

I lurve him. :loveya:

[Cameron27]

22. Are you kidding

I'm ready to marry him.

:evilgrin:

[salvorhardin]

48. I'm flattered

But BMUS has right of first refusal. ;-)

[Blackthorn]

25. The towers came down in freefall. That's the point.

When I say "speed of gravity" I mean if someone had dropped a bowling ball from the same height as the top of the tower, at the same time as the tower fell, both would reach the ground at the same time. Call it whatever you want, argue semantics. Nothing changes that.

For this to happen, each floor, when the above floor lands on it (ala Pancake Theory), it must already be in freefall. That is to say, it exhibits ZERO resistance as the above floor lands on it. The only way for the lower floors, particulary those 20-30 floors and beyond BELOW the impact area to be in freefall as the upper floors land on them is by controlled demolition. How else could the central core of the building be destroyed, all the way to ground?

Like I said, the logistics are still up for debate. I don't claim to have the answers. but anyone arguing against the above is arguing that the laws of physics changed on the morning of 9/11 and changed back the 12th.

Don't forget Building 7 either.

[AZCat]

26. Except they didn't. n/t

[salvorhardin]

31. I'm sorry but that's just asinine

The debris falling off the building is clearly falling at a faster rate than the building itself. The building is not in free-fall. In fact, nothing on Earth can be in free-fall. We have an atmosphere and because of wind resistance anything falling has a terminal velocity, which is usually a great deal slower the velocity that would be reached due to the acceleration of gravity.

You can keep repeating this myth as often as you like, but it doesn't change facts.

[AZCat]

41. Technically speaking...

without air resistance the terminal velocity of an object is infinite under a constant acceleration of "g" (or any other value except zero, for that matter).


(where's that hair-splitting smiley?)

[salvorhardin]

43. Quite true

Of course, in our instance that pesky surface of the earth gets in the way. :D

[AZCat]

46. Yeah, yeah...

I thought about that but didn't want "reality" to get in the way of a snarky comment. :)

[salvorhardin]

47. I'm so sorry

I forgot the rules of this forum. :evilgrin:

[pnorman]

62. To my (admittedly non-professional) eyes,

Those buildings came down at a speed (okay, acceleration) a very sizable fraction of what I would expect to be "free-fall". But a one-at-a-time cascade of failures of successive structural elements (floors), would seem to me to take much longer. I await correction by someone with technical training.They sure looked like "controlled demolitions" to me. I'm also untrained in that art, but I understand that it requires a LOT of expert planning --- hardly (but not impossibly) a chance event. I avoid like the plague what's termed "tinfoil" theories, but I will NOT rule them out JUST because I don't want people laughing at me. FUCKEM!

pnorman

[OldSiouxWarrior]

85. The reason is that the whole mess doesn't stop/start with each floor.

Once the building begins to come down, the falling mass has momentum. (You can probably hold 100 lbs in your arms. Have someone get on the roof of your house and throw a hundred pound weight down for you to catch.) Same problem for the buildings. Each level was hit by a moving mass and was not able to stop the mass. As each floor sheared off, it added to the momentum that was hitting the next floor, and so on. With each level, the momentum grows, and the floors shear faster.

To an observer, it looks like a good approximation of free-fall.

[Blackthorn]

90. Incorrect

Go and watch the footage again.

As you describe it, this momentum, implies that as the towers fell, the speed at which they fell increased as more mass landed on each successive floor.

The footage of the towers falling does not show any acceleration.

Furthermore, you would expect the first two or three floor collapses would happen slowly and would exhibit the most resistance as they are bearing the lightest load.

The footage doesn't show that either.

Even further more. The central core of the building was destroyed, all the way to the ground. There was no stump, where the floors had been sheared away from the core and fallen around it. Even further, the central core, having received no sideways impact at all, only from above as your pancake theory says (excluding the part that wore the plane) also managed to collapse straight down. Even though the core itself never recieved any impact, as the floors are situated around it. How do you explain the destruction of the core of the building?

I mean, if you've seen controlled demolitions before, the more and more you watch the towers fall, it just can't be explained any other way. Imagine, if 9/11 never happend and in 30 years time they wanted to demolish the Twin Towers. What would it look like? I'd bet my left testicle it would look incredibly similar to what happened on 9/11.

[Carefulplease]

96. "The footage (...) does not show any acceleration."

As you describe it, this momentum, implies that as the towers fell, the speed at which they fell increased as more mass landed on each successive floor.

The footage of the towers falling does not show any acceleration.

This is a most incredible claim. Since the whole collapses lasted no more than about 15 seconds, this would entail that the upper blocks acquired almost instantly a downward speed of 91 feet per second and maintained that speed. What would have caused the huge almost instantaneous downward acceleration in the first instant?

Actually, theorists from all venues (both "official" and "skeptical" researchers) who have carefully mapped the kinematics of the collapsing towers as seen on videos (until dust obscured the views) have found that the acceleration was quickly approaching a value that is approximately 2/3 of the acceleration of gravity. See this message for some references:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=118975&mesg_id=119052

Most other "skeptics" swear that the acceleration was actually greater than this -- that it was closer to g and that the collapse time was closer to 9.2 seconds.

Even further more. The central core of the building was destroyed, all the way to the ground. There was no stump, where the floors had been sheared away from the core and fallen around it. Even further, the central core, having received no sideways impact at all, only from above as your pancake theory says (excluding the part that wore the plane) also managed to collapse straight down. Even though the core itself never recieved any impact, as the floors are situated around it. How do you explain the destruction of the core of the building?

Contrary to what you say, several footages and photographs from the collapse of both buildings show large portions of the cores that stood several seconds after the floors and perimeter walls had fully collapsed. The core columns yielded at the level of the impact and fire zones when some walls of the towers were pulled in by sagging floors and their loads were transferred to the damaged core through the action of the hat truss. What then collapsed the lower portion of the cores were the higher portions of the cores falling on them while all lateral bracings were being shaved off by the falling floors.

[tenseconds]

166. no falling object

No falling object of any size exceeds the maximum 32 feet second per second acceleration of a gravitational collapse.

[Carefulplease]

190. Is that supposed to contradict anything I said? On edit: n/t

[OldSiouxWarrior]

112. Take a look at ImplosionWorld.Com

Here is the link: http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1

Close to the top of the page, they have a box: READ IMPLOSIONWORLD'S PAPER ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE'S Just under that they have a link to their paper on the subject. Click here to read the paper

They are genuine experts who do demolitions FOR A LIVING. They disagree with you. You will understand that I would take the word of real experts over a conspiracy theorist.

[Make7]

140. Here's a direct link to that article:

Edited to change font size of links and examples and to show the full text of working link

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

You should be able to copy and paste that into future posts. (Should you desire to do such a thing.)

Or even better still, what you need to do to fix that link is replace every space in the web address with a %20. To use this link as an example:

   www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Becomes:

   www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

That will usually work with any weird web addresses that uses spaces.

- Make7

[OldSiouxWarrior]

144. Thanks. I copied it for future use. NT

[tenseconds]

167. conspiracy theorists

We're all conspiracy theorists. Yours is different than mine. After all the buildings were brought down by conspirators..no matter who they were.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

114. You have been watching too many Star-Trek reruns.

You said: "The footage of the towers falling does not show any acceleration." (Emphasis is mine.)


0 to 60mph (average speed) instantaneously !!!!! WOW. That is amazing. Was that a warp factor 9 fall?

[Blackthorn]

115. You are merely playing semantics.

I am referring to an acceleration across the duration of the collapse. I can only assume I'm not expressing myself clearly enough to articulate to you exactly what I'm trying to say. At any rate, your condescending attitude indicates I'd be wasting my time if I tried.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

116. Yes, playing semantics to mock you.

I gave my serious response in my other post. Did you read the paper by the real experts. I bet you didn't. CTers can't take truth from real experts who DO DEMOLITIONS FOR A LIVING.

[Blackthorn]

121. No, I didn't.

Because the only link you provided that worked was to a news page. I'm not going on a scavenger hunt through garbage to find an article you couldn't link to in the first place.

At any rate, I'm not going to change my opinion on the basis of one article. I didn't arrive at MIHOP because I read one article.

Your article won't explain the Pentagon. It won't explain Flight 77. It won't explain all the "coincidences" that occured on that day, that allowed the attacks to take place. It won't explain PNAC's cryptic allusion to a "new pearl harbour". It won't address the fact MOLTEN STEEL was found in the WTC basement. It won't explain away the numerous reports of multiple explosions. It won't explain how the lobby of one of the towers was destroyed. It won't change the fact that the Bush Adminstration went from taking the moral high ground in the 2000 election campaign, to a (c)overtly fascist state as a DIRECT RESULT of 9/11. It won't explain the theft of 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[greyl]

124. All you had to do was click a link front and center on the page.

Here's a direct link to the paper written by demolition experts:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

The article doesn't pretend to explain any of the falsehoods in your littany.

Your assertion that there was no acceleration throughout the collapse is ridiculous on its face.
We would see acceleration of debris whether during controlled demo or not.

[Blackthorn]

132. About as ridiculous as that article.

I have clarified what I was referring to by no acceleration. Once the towers are in motion, there is little discernable acceleration, in that the towers do not start falling slowly then speed up as the collapse continues.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

134. That article was by genuine demo professionals.

Why should I belive you over people who do demos for a living?

I don't think that you actually read the article. There hasn't been enough time.

[Blackthorn]

139. Oh I'm sorry.

GENUINE DEMO PROFESSIONALS. Well my minds made up. I'll just stop thinking for myself and believe what these people are telling me because they're experts. No need for me to try and draw my own conclusions. I have experts to do that for me.

I don't give a fuck who wrote it. I read it, I digested it and I think its rubbish. I decide what I think. It doesn't matter if I'm wrong, just that I am happy with the opinions I hold for myself. Far too many people let other people decide what they should think. It's how Hitler happened, and its how Bush is happening.

And I'm glad you're such an expert on ME that you can tell what I can or cannot read in any period of time.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

143. We all frequently rely on other's expert opinions.

When I take my car to a mechanic, when I consult a computer technician, when I go to a doctor, when I consult a lawyer, I am getting an expert opinion.

When I want to know about building demolitions, thanks to the internet, I can find GENUINE EXPERT opinions on that subject too.

You said: It doesn't matter if I'm wrong, just that I am happy with the opinions I hold for myself. How very true. I reject that stance for myself. I want to be right, even if in knowing the truth I become unhappy over a particular item. Ultimately, I will be better off with truth than a delusion.

You cling to your delusion, not because it is true, but because it gives you the feeling that someone is in control of the world, even if that someone is evil. And your delusion gives you hope that if you can overthrow the evil controller, then all will be right with the world. But it is a delusion. The world's problems are larger and more complex than any one person.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blackthorn]

158. Stick to the fucking subject?

So, you didn't refer to some crazy notion that a secret army is living under America? I mean, that has nothing to do with 9/11 so its obviously MY fault for referring to it because obviously YOU have the monopoly on bringing up off-topic stuff. So, I profusely and insincerely apologise for referring to something in your post.

I mean, I could go on about how that paper is working from the false assumption that the fire created in either tower was A) hot enough and B) burnt long enough to cause the strucutural damage that led to the towers collapse. I'm sure someone as "smart" as you would have seen the picture of the woman standing in the gaping hole left by the plane. I'm sure you're "smart" enough to know that black smoke means an oxygen starved fire that is not burning near maximum temperature.

If the underlying assumption for the pancake theory is flawed, then what is the point wasting time refuting anything based on it?

I mean, the fact that they have never heard of someone using the term "pull it" in reference to detonating a building does not mean that A) that phrase has never been used to infer detonating a building or B) that building 7 was never pulled.

It's a terribly shonky jump in logic and undermines the credibility of the authors.

At any rate, six words in to your second paragraph. GENERALLY. I rest my case. You don't know me, but feel to free to judge.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

152. "I want to be right, even if..."

I want to be right, even if in knowing the truth I become unhappy over a particular item.

Bravo!

[OldSiouxWarrior]

130. That because you are afraid of the truth.

If you had to give up your CT, it would mean you would have to deal with a world that is not controlled by somebody - and that frightens you. You would rather believe that the world is controlled by an evil wizard because that give you hope that if only the magic ring can be thrown in the volcano, then all will be right with the world. If only Bush can be brought down, everything will be OK.

But the world isn't like that. There is no one in control and chaos reigns.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

133. I have addressed the pentagon in other posts.

There were DOZENS of eyewitnesses. Of course CTers claim that all of the witnesses were in on the plot.

But here we are talking about the WTC. By your sudden shift to the pentagon, may I assume that you are realizing that you have lost the battle about the WTC?

[pnorman]

117. That sounds plausible/probable.

But the fact that it looks close to free-fall is enough reason to at least CONSIDER an explanation beyond the "official" one. ESPECIALLY, considering how much effort the Bush administration went to block any Congressional investigation -- and when that proved impossible, to stymie it.

I got that DVD "9/11 PRESSING FOR THE TRUTH" the other day and was appalled, although I was already familiar with much of the material from following DU. I'll view it again tonight, and try to pay even closer attention to the details. I encourage all others here to get that DVD.

pnorman

On edit: Here's the info on that above-mentioned DVD: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/911_press_for_truth.html

[OldSiouxWarrior]

131. Bush's actions are a different question.

I am limiting myself to those things that I can know from science in these discussions.

To attempt to go into Bush's mind is to enter "The Twilight Zone". No, I think he thinks he is in an old John Wayne movie. (Hey, I love John Wayne movies, but I remember that it is just a movie. Put brain in neutral, eat popcorn, relax and enjoy the action.) Anyway, it is starting to look like Bush and Ahmadinejad are in Main St. walking toward each other, maybe with nukes. Somebody needs to tell Bush that this isn't a JW Western.

[tenseconds]

164. resistance?

There's no resistance factor in your theory. And when the upper section would hit the lower one the resistance would cause the lower floors of the upper section to break up.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

72. The terminal velocity is NOT infinite. I approaches C.

Hey, if we are going to split technical hairs, let's do it right.

[salvorhardin]

81. Hah!

Damn you for being correct. Now I'm going to have to start half a dozen threads in GD repeating some half-truth or myth that's been debunked 1000 times over to get the stink of factual accuracy out of my nose. ;-)

[AZCat]

94. I am smote by the sword of Einstein.

Damn him and his extension of a Newtonian world!


So I'm wrong (yet again). I suspect the world will survive - but thanks for the correction anyway. After all, shouldn't we emphasize accuracy for ourselves as much as we do for others?

[salvorhardin]

107. Sort of like Alice Through The Looking Glass?

I try to be wrong half a dozen times before breakfast? :D

[OldSiouxWarrior]

111. It was just too much fun to resist. NT

[Carefulplease]

118. Constant acceleration and terminal velocity...

Edited for typos.

Technically speaking without air resistance the terminal velocity of an object is infinite under a constant acceleration of "g" (or any other value except zero, for that matter).

You could have meant two things here:

(1) Ex hypothesi, if the acceleration is constant as measured in some inertial frame thent there is no finite terminal velocity although this implies that the laws of physics are breached if a material object is to exceed the speed of light.

(2) If you rather pictured an object falling in an uniform gravitational field then what would be constant is the proper acceleration of the object (that is, the instantaneous acceleration measured in a frame in which the object is initially at rest). In that case, indeed, it would seem that the velocity would approach c asymptotically as measured from any inertial frame.

One trouble is that GR does not allow for the definition of an extended frame in a region of space-time in which a uniform gravitational frame is present. In other words, if gravity is uniformly present, then the components of the Riemann tensor aren't all zero everywhere whatever your choice of a coordinate system is.

For instance, what might be thought to best characterize a uniform gravitational field would be that produced in an otherwise empty universe by an infinite sheet of matter that has uniform area density. (Alternatively, we could use the local limit of the Schwartzchild metric produced by a spherical object as its distance and mass are both increased to infinity while the ratio m/d^2 is kept constant) In a Newtonian universe, any one of these procedures would yield (mutatis mutandis) a gravitational field that is genuinely uniform. In the GR universe, if several observers are dropped from different distances from the matter-plane (or from the very distant and massive star), then as seen from the co-moving frame of any one observer, the observers above are seen to be accelerating towards him (their clocks are seen to be gravitationally blue-shifted) and the observers below are seen to be accelerating in the other direction (their clocks are seen to be gravitationally red-shifted). Thus, the field appears to be non-uniform from the point of view of a bunch of free falling observers who should rather -- as the equivalence principle dictates -- deem space to be flat in such conditions (free-fall).

Owing to these difficulties you must have meant (1) rather than (2) and the terminal velocity is thus, ex hypothesi, infinity, like you stated.

[AZCat]

125. My head actually hurt when reading your post.

I haven't had to leave the comfort of the Newtonian universe for almost a decade now and remembering this stuff was hard work, but I think I got it. The few things I didn't understand (lost to time or degeneracy) I will look up later when I get home and can un-archive those books. Many thanks anyway... :)

[Carefulplease]

128. Some references...

If you have Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (the latter being your former PhD thesis advisor it would seem) then have a look at page 168 "Constraints on Size of an Accelerated Frame" and on chapter 7 "Incompatibility of Gravity and Special Relativity"; Especially section 7.3 "Gravitational Redshift Implies Spacetime is Curved" for arguments analogous to mine.

[AZCat]

129. You mean from the good ol' days at Princeton?

That WAS a long time ago! (like before I died) ;)

An uncle of mine was actually at Princeton when Dr. Wheeler was there - I should ask him if Dr. Wheeler taught any of his classes. Anyway I'm looking at picking up the book - I'm on vacation the first week of October and need some reading material.

[Carefulplease]

126. Erratum

Where I wrote: "One trouble is that GR does not allow for the definition of an extended frame in a region of space-time in which a uniform gravitational frame is present."

Read instead: "One trouble is that GR does not allow for the definition of an extended frame in a region of space-time in which a uniform gravitational field is present."

[Carefulplease]

149. Erratum II

I wrote "the components of the Riemann tensor aren't all zero everywhere"
Read "the off-diagonal components of the Riemann tensor aren't all zero everywhere"

There is another bad reasoning mistake that vitiates my conclusion but it is left as an exercise for the reader to find it. This was just meant as a joke and it is way off topic.

[Blackthorn]

87. Since you know all the maths behind it.

I'm sure you can calculate, using that fancy number you quoted, how long it should take an object to fall the 110 storeys in free fall. And I'm sure you could track down a video of the towers falling and I'm sure you'll find that the two times are remarkably similar.

Have you watched Loose Change yet?

[Carefulplease]

97. This is quite puzzling...

In message #90 you claimed that the towers fell with an essentially constant speed (zero acceleration). Here you claim that the duration of the collapse matches the time for an object to fall from the roofline starting from rest with an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2. That would be 9.2 seconds. Are you suggesting that such a coincidence would be significant in some way?

[Klimmer]

28. Your second point . . .

The material that is hitting the ground first before the rest of the tower collapses was sent in projectile motion radiating in all directions upwards, sideways, and downward by explosives. These debri that were ejected in projectile motion downward have X amount of force due to the pull of gravity + the additional downward force of the explosives. These debri will be accelerated downward faster than g (9.8 m/s/s).

Here is a thought experiment: Take 2 large steel bearings and drop one from a roof-line and at the exact same time throw the other downward. Which one will hit the ground first? Obviously, the one you threw. It has a downward force of X from you throwing it, and in addition the pull of g (gravity). We can time the collapse of the buildings from the moment the roof-line starts to move, and we have. One fell approx. in 10 seconds, and the other approx. 11 seconds.

Also we know the towers fell close to the acceleration of g, actually a little less. A steel bearing (in a vacuum with no air resistance) will fall from the higher tower in 9.2 seconds. The towers fell in approx. 10 and 11 seconds. This would be expected if the towers fell at g (9.8 m/s/s) in real world conditions --- friction from with air resistance or very little resistance from the building below as they fell. The towers were pulverized from top down, in controlled demolition fashion. We see it. We hear it. Many, many eye-witnesses experienced it and said so on record. We have classic projectile motion, squibs, and pyroclastic flow, not to mention the chemical signature of Thermite and/or Thermate. And we can do the science and we see the buildings fall nearly at free-fall accelerations. This can't happen in the OCT or OCH, the pan-cake hypothesis.

[AZCat]

30. Wow.

And you claim to teach high school phsyics? That scares the piss out of me...

[Richard Steele]

49. People CLAIM lots of stuff on the internets.

Just sayin.

[tenseconds]

168. snide

How about a sensible rebuttal instead of the usual snide.

[salvorhardin]

42. This is bullshit

You can clearly see parts of the building falling off the main structure after the collapse begins and they are still falling at a faster rate than the bulk of the building.

Secondly, controlled demolitions are done from the bottom up. Not top-down as the towers collapsed.

And your ball bearing thought experiment is not analogous. It is a supreme over-simplification. If there were explosives, the downward force of the explosives would be directed into the concrete floors thus almost entirely negating any downward acceleration of ejecta from the explosions.

I agree with AzCat. That you teach high school physics scares the piss out of me.

[Klimmer]

53. I do. Obviously you don't understand physics. Tell me where I'm wrong!

You both claim that the building can't possibly have fallen at free-fall. Never claimed it did. Near free-fall acceleration is what happened, and what I have always said. No one claims free-fall. NEAR free-fall. Apparently you don't read. We are talking real world conditions where friction must be taken into account, as opposed to ideal world, in a vacuum w/out friction.

Debri impacting the ground before the entire building falls is because the demolition was from top down. Debri that is sent off in projectile motion with a downward trajectory from the start will go faster than the acceleration of g (9.8 m/s/s) because it has the additional push (force) of the explosives. Apparently you can't grasp this concept? This is basic kinematics/mechanics --- physics. The thought experiment with 2 steel bearings above apparently you don't get? That is very sad. Even freshmen (9th graders) taking the regular physics class can get this.

Perhaps you should enroll in a physics class. I teach 3, M - F in San Diego City Schools.

[AZCat]

55. Ahh, the irony.

You really should work on your understanding of the subject, especially if you're teaching it.

Should I give you a few days to think about the flaws in your "ball bearing thought experiment" so you can save a little face by figuring them out on your own? If you need a little help with the concepts feel free to ask - I have some experience tutoring those who are having trouble in this area.

[mirandapriestly]

59. I have never believed your claims to be a scientist.eom

[AZCat]

91. I don't really give a shit about what you believe.

Nor have I ever claimed to be a scientist, so this strikes me as just another example of the fallibility of human memory.

[mirandapriestly]

136. What happened to your unctuous politeness?

you made some kind of expert-texpert claim; scientist, engineer, whatever...doesn't matter cuz it's not real.

[greyl]

138. I thought you didn't like Colbert?

I think you're quoting him directly.

[mirandapriestly]

177. no idea what you're talking about,eom

[AZCat]

141. In your reality, miranda, you're entitled to believe whatever you want.

Just don't expect it to matter to the rest of us.

[tenseconds]

170. start

Well start tutoring. Your time is getting short. Get on with it buddy.

[AZCat]

188. I"m waiting for Klimmer to respond.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

[Make7]

63. "near free-fall speeds or faster."

Edited to remove a word

Klimmer wrote:

You both claim that the building can't possibly have fallen at free-fall. Never claimed it did. Near free-fall acceleration is what happened, and what I have always said. No one claims free-fall. NEAR free-fall. Apparently you don't read.

Never say never.

Klimmer wrote on Sep-08-06:

Let’s do the same for WTC 2 the South Tower . . .

You drop a steel bearing from the very edge of the roof-line of WTC 2 the South Tower, how long would it take (in seconds) to impact the ground?

t = square root of (2d / g)

given values: g = 9.8m/s^2 d = 415.1376m

Solving for t . . . t = 9.20 seconds
9 seconds is the approx. time for the total collapse of WTC 2 the South Tower, proving that the tower fell at near free-fall speeds or faster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=114064&mesg_id=114430

What exactly do you mean by "near free-fall speeds or faster"?

The flaw in your "near free-fall" assertion is that the collapse times you are using are simply incorrect. I'm not sure how you determined those times, but you might want to consider double-checking your estimates.

- Make7

[Klimmer]

84. The times I used came from the NIST website.

The website with the so-called NIST rebuttals to what critical thinking people are now asking and wondering.

They listed 9 seconds for the approx. time for the total collapse of WTC 2 for the South Tower. I have seen a range of times for the collapse. I would think it is perhaps more accurate to say that the South Tower, WTC 2, probably fell completely in about 10 seconds, rather than 9 seconds. But since I just grabbed that number off the NIST site I went with it. If that is indeed the actual total collapse time, 9 seconds, then indeed Tower 2 fell faster than acceleration due to gravity. The only way something can fall faster than g is due to additional forces that are acting downward on the object falling. However, I think the actual time is more around 10 seconds, so WTC 2, the South Tower fell near free-fall acceleration of g, but at a slightly slower rate of acceleration. This is what we would expect due to friction (air resistance) and a very, very slight resistance from the building falling from the top down since the towers were essentially pulverized by explosives from the top down.

These times approx. 10 seconds for WTC 2, and 11 seconds for WTC 1, are approx. averages. As I said before, if we take an entire classroom of physics students, HS or college, and have them watch the entire collapses of both towers on video/DVD in real time, using stop-watches, and then gathering all this data, it would be a good measure of the actual total collapse times. Some students would have slow reactions, and short fall times. Some students would have too fast reactions, and would have long fall times. By doing the experiment many times, and many observations, then taking the average, we do away with these outliers and come to a good average.

Now WTC 7 is another story. The total collapse fall times I've seen suggest it fell faster than g (9.8 m/s/s) and the only way to do that is to have a slight additional force to gravity pulling down on the building as it fell. What this force would be I can only guess. A partial vacuum created within the building temporarily , due to the explosives used in the CD? I don't know. That would be my best guess (hypothesis).

[Make7]

89. But the NIST times that you are using are not the total collapse times.

 

Klimmer wrote:

They listed 9 seconds for the approx. time for the total collapse of WTC 2 for the South Tower. I have seen a range of times for the collapse. I would think it is perhaps more accurate to say that the South Tower, WTC 2, probably fell completely in about 10 seconds, rather than 9 seconds. But since I just grabbed that number off the NIST site I went with it. If that is indeed the actual total collapse time, 9 seconds, then indeed Tower 2 fell faster than acceleration due to gravity.

The times you are using from the NIST site are not the total collapse times. This has been pointed out to you before by AZCat, but I will repost the excerpt he used from that NIST page in his previous reply to you.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Clearly they are not implying that these times are the times for either total collapse - as would be indicated by the following additional excerpt:

Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

For you to continue to assert that these times are indicative of the actual collapse times does nothing to strengthen your argument. In fact, it almost makes it look like you need to misrepresent the facts of your case in order for it to have any validity.

If you believe having a classroom full of students time the collapses would be an appropriate method to get a good average, then why are you using the NIST times for the "first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers" as the total collapse times? Why don't you have some students, or anyone else for that matter, actually time the collapses to get an average. Hell, even if you were to estimate the times yourself from watching videos it would be better than misrepresenting what the times presented by NIST actually mean.

- Make7

[Make7]

186. "never cherry pick the evidence" - Klimmer

 

Klimmer wrote:

Height of WTC North Tower (WTC 1) = 1368’ = 416.9664m
Total time of collapse = approx. 11 seconds

Height of WTC South Tower (WTC 2) = 1362’ = 415.1376m
Total time of collapse = approx. 9 seconds


Even at the NIST propaganda website they admit to the collapse times in the following question and don’t argue the times . . .
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

“6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”

Where do these times come from? Well, anyone watching video in real time of the collapses can measure these times with a stop watch. These are the times given from the moment the tower roof-lines begin their downward journey to the approx. time that the heavier-than-air mass of the buildings settles onto the ground (dust particles would stay air-born for a very long time . . . days, even weeks).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=114064&mesg_id=114430

From the NIST website:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

The NIST answer sounds different than your explanation as the times being "from the moment the tower roof-lines begin their downward journey to the approx. time that the heavier-than-air mass of the buildings settles onto the ground". Why is that?

And the last sentence of that NIST answer states: "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely." That seems to also contradict what you have said (as quoted above). Interesting...

- Make7

[tenseconds]

169. projectile acceleration

You can set off explosives from any point in the building.They started at the points of the planes' impact areas to make it look convincing.

The downward projectiles and dust were accelerated past the gravitational acceleration because they were initially trajected via explosives. As Klinger pointed out in a previous post. Why is this so hard for you guys to grasp? I guess if you lose this argument you can throw in the towel. Maybe thats why you appear to be constantly refering to it. Sorry the games over. Can't win them all.

[greyl]

51. What if one of the ball bearings is

projected exactly horizontally at the same time the other is dropped?

[Klimmer]

54. Easy. They hit at the same time. :-)) Next.

Even in real world conditions it works, the effects from air resistance through a few feet of air is negligible. We do this demo every year in the projectile motion unit for the students. I call it "2 bullets and a Gun."

Shoot one bullet perfectly horizontal and at the same exact time drop another bullet from the exact same height as the one fired. Which one hits the ground first? They both hit at the same time. Just remember don't stand in front of the gun. I use a substitute for the gun, not a real gun!

Another play on this classic experiment is "Shoot the Monkey."

[greyl]

57. I know, just checking. Now, apply that knowledge to the reality here.

We have photographic evidence that the panels falling on the outside of the building were falling unimpeded and that the building itself was not. The falling debris is below the collapsing area which means the building was not falling at free fall.
The NIST's figures were of the first panels to hit the ground, not on the total collapse time.

[gkdmaths]

16. PROOF is a hard dog to train. nt

[SheilaT]

142. Okay, so all the

explosives don't go off at the exact same time in at least some controlled explosions, but I've watched the video, and I see NOTHING that looks like a traditional controlled explosion.

And no one ever seems to address the "How were the explosive planted, over what period of time, and why did no one notice all that explosive planting in two huge buildings?" question.

In controlled demolitions it typically takes weeks to put in all the explosives in a building which has already been stripped of much of its infrastructure, and that's with crews working openly all day long. And the WTC buildings were HUGE, not merely tall. Such a project would have taken months under such normal conditions -- the planned demolition of such buildings. So why have we never heard anyone saying, Yeah, I always wondered why for all of some two year period every single night these guys came in and drilled holes in the wall and, oh hell, why do I even bother?

[tenseconds]

171. demolition

It wasn't a "traditional" demolition.

[Klimmer]

173. SheilaT and others like her thinking the same thought . . .

Watch and learn and you will know how they did it . . .

3 parter - 911 Mysteries (Very good. One of the best on the demolition of the WTC towers)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x118868

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&hl=en-CA
Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&hl=en-CA
Part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1162851149755261569&hl=en-CA

Website for 911 Mysteries DVD:
http://www.911weknow.com/

[tenseconds]

180. just wondering

This a bit off subject but have you brought up the physics of the collapsed towers to your students?

[Klimmer]

184. They bring it up, in the context of what are scientific hypotheses?

At the beginning of the year we are going over science fundamentals such as the what and the how of the scientific method. Demonstrating how science is a tool, a very powerful tool that can only deal with scientific hypotheses as opposed to unscientific hypotheses.

Example:

"Man will never set foot on the Moon"

This is a scientific hypothesis, because even though many people around the world think this (even believe we faked it all) and we know it to be invalid, the fact is we can test it experimentally and attempt to invalidate it. A scientific hypothesis must be testable. There must be some experimental design that can be done to put it to the test in attempt to invalidate it.

I ask them, "Is there anything else that people are wondering and asking serious questions about now? And many raise their hand and say "Yea, 9-11!" I said "Good. You should always be skeptical and ask questions about everything. Always look at both sides of the issue, and look at all the evidence, not just what you want to look at, and never cherry pick the evidence. That is unethical. Science is about what is measurable, real, testable, true. And if your hypothesis is invalidated, then it is invalidated. Adjust it or abandon it, and begin again."

Many know. I can't really go more into depth other than tell them to check it out on their own. At times we might do experiments or demos in class that are applicable, and I might relate it briefly along with using many other examples drawn from many different common student life experiences.

I try to stay away from talking politics, but I certainly call out social issues when they have a direct science connection and it is relevant to what we are talking about.

I don't do bird-walks. I'm right on topic.

[DemInDistress]

14. can I send you a PM? showing just what you claim didn't happen

I'd post it here but then this thread might be thrown in the dungeon..

I have an excellent video clip for you..

[global1]

15. Weren't There Workmen In the Building Prior to 9/11? Also, I Heard....

something once about planting explosives in the sprinkler system of the buildings - any truth to either of these theories?a

[rman]

56. That issue has been addressed more than once

in the 9-11 forum. But surely you don't want to associate with tinfoil kooks, do you?

If you did, you'd already have known there were several unusual power-downs and evacuations in the WTC towers shortly before 9-11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcUQg3DadaA&mode=related&search=

And yes, every speech by Bush is written by speech writers - as virtually every speech by virtually every official is written by speech writers. A presidential speech in the Rose Garden is not quite the same thing as an off-hand remark made during a visit at an elementary school.

If nothing else, what Bush said about being informed regarding the attacks totally destroys the government's prior claim that there was no way they could have known. It makes it clear that was a blatant lie.

[JeffR]

5. I'm firmly in the LIHOP camp

but could be persuaded of MIHOP. I'm afraid this doesn't sway me...

[helderheid]

8. hooooooooooooly shit

[Alacrat]

13. This is absurd

Good grief, bush and the cia are probably guilty of a lot of things. Planting explosives in the towers is not one of them. I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion from reading this.

[beam me up scottie]

18. No kidding.

And we're supposed to believe those insidious "masterminds" then gave Georgie a speech to read that blows the whole thing wide open by admitting they planted explosives?

:banghead:

[salvorhardin]

27. That's the evil genius of the plan

They tell it to you with a straight face and since Bush is known to be a liar and a moron you won't believe what he said and they get away with it. PROOF!!!111

[beam me up scottie]

29. OMG!!1!

It's so obvious!!!!1

! wait a minute...I thought he was just pretending to be a moron?


Ahhhhh, how clever of you.

You're not tricking me, no way hose, I'm on to you, bub.

[salvorhardin]

45. Hey, we've all got to earn a living somehow

And eeeval pays so well. :evilgrin:

[Marr]

19. I agree with you.

The whole thing is illogical. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Dick Cheney decided to blow up the World Trade Center.

If he could get the place wired with enough explosives to bring it down, why not just do THAT? Why bother with the planes at all?

[Klimmer]

86. You have to have a patsy.

Having the towers look as though they came down due to airliners slamming into them, allows the for the OCH to hold water and to seem like it is possible.

Sure, don't you see? See, it isn't that hard to imagine 19 Muslim hijackers (having come from living in caves) with box-knives having been sent on a suicide mission by OBL could actually pull off this low tech brilliant plan, and slammed those jets into the buildings and then they just collapsed. It's as simple as that. Isn't that what most of us thought we saw?

Yet, the physics don't allow the towers to collapse just due to an airliner loaded with jet fuel. No doubt they (this criminal administration) wanted the towers to come down, in fact all 3 of them. But, to let people think or know that they really came down due to CD explosives, then 19 hijackers with box-cutter knives couldn't have done this. People would ask questions like who was really behind collapsing these towers? 19 hijackers sent by OBL and all living in caves couldn't have done all this. It takes time to set-up CD and what about all the access issues? Uh oh, that points to many more people being involved, and how were they granted access to the buildings to do all of this in the first place?

The BCF and the Neo-con Rethugs can't have people thinking and asking qustions. They always need a fall-guy, a patsy. It's their MO. It always has been.

[Carefulplease]

106. What physics does and does not allow...

Yet, the physics don't allow the towers to collapse just due to an airliner loaded with jet fuel.

What is it about this explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers that contravenes the laws of physics?

[Klimmer]

113. Read the articles in the Journal of 911 Studies for starts . . .

It can't happen. Not with the specific design of the WTC towers in mind.

The Journal is growing and the articles are peer reviewed. The arguments are sound and the science and physics true. Unlike the compromised 9-11 commission Report, NIST report, among others.

We can look at all sides of the coin, and the best hypotheses in the 9-11 truth movement stand up to all the evidence, not just some. Where as the OCT immediately falls down (pancakes) with every invalidation we find. If it is invalidated then you must reject the hypothesis, yet OCTers can't seem to do this. Why? The scientific method demands you do so. Could it be that the BCF, the criminal cabal of a administration doesn't know science, and everyone who tries in vain to prop-up the OCT doesn't know science and falsifies their results and have arterial motives? This is criminal and immoral.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[Carefulplease]

120. I've read some of those articles...

I've read those written by Jones, Ryan, Ross, and Furlong and Ross that concern the collapses of the WTC Towers. They all are riddled with serious errors. You might not have read them critically enough. I am not going to review them all here although if you search the archives you will find that I have commented on all of them (or on the main issues raised by them) several times. Can you provide one example of an argument any one of them makes that seem to you to show that the "impact damage + fire" account conflicts with the laws of physics?

[dailykoff]

122. Your comments on those articles are completely meaningless.

No offense but your "I + F" arguments are exercises in imaginary engineering. It might help to learn something about structures before embarrassing yourself further in any language.

I mean that as constructive criticism.

[Carefulplease]

123. Thanks for the constructive criticism Dailykoff...

Maybe some day you will get around to addressing specific issues and producing actual arguments in support of your views. You might want also to drop the constant derisive language.

I mean this as constructive criticism.

[Norrin Radd]

174. Messed up my post! self-delete n/t

[Norrin Radd]

175. self-delete n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

70. "probably"? The CIA???

You've just validated the entire utilitarian justification of covert ops. Keep the details secret from the majority of the population. Deemphasize them when they do leak. Deny wrongdoing outright, feign indignation, and deploy the myth of American exceptionalism to plant and cultivate the seed of doubt that US military/intelligence would or even could do all those awful things some lefties whisper about.

When we say 'probably' about the CIA, it means secrecy and indirection work in just the way they're intended to.

And I agree, by the way: no CD at WTC.

[RobertSeattle]

17. Not this crap again

So the same folks who "planted" explosives to coincide with the planes hitting the towers couldn't plant WMDs in Iraq.

[lala_rawraw]

69. i think it important to

separate "explosives being used" and "who planted them". two separate points. the assumption is that there must be answers to all of these questions when in fact most of the evidence has been classified. all we can answer is the basic science of it and there is no doubt that building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. now you can speculate as to who set up the explosives and why, which is something that many people have done. i would rather we focus on the science of it and the science of it is that yes, there is no question, explosives were used in building 7. they could have been set up by anyone for any number of reasons and some of those reasons need not even relate 911, nor implicate anyone in our own government. but that question is completely separate from the fact that building 7 was brought down because of explosives.

[salvorhardin]

154. Just as people can claim tower 1 and 2 fell "at the speed of gravity"

You can say this all you want, and yet it doesn't make it true.

I'm sorry, but you are full of it on this. You can not find one credible person (and no, Steven Jones is not credible) who will advance the argument that WTC 7 fell as a result of controlled demolition. I know you're smart so it really saddens me when I see you repeat bullshit like this.

[wildbilln864]

79. Please do some research before ridiculing...

Actually they did try to plant WMDs in Iraq! I guess that little news item got past you.
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html

911 was an inside job!
www.newamericancentury.org see "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

[AZBlue]

23. This is a joke, right?

If not, how you got from:
"HE TOLD US THE OPERATIVES HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO ENSURE THAT THE EXPLOSIVES WENT OFF AT A HIGH -- A POINT THAT WAS HIGH ENOUGH TO PREVENT PEOPLE TRAPPED ABOVE FROM ESCAPING.”
to:
"There you have it. Bush admits to now knowing explosives were placed in the WTC towers."
one will never know. Never.

[tenseconds]

172. oh well

Sounds as if he meant to say the fires from the exploding planes but slipped.Oh well...how many will take notice.

[mrgerbik]

33. Bush slips up?

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

This was a quote from The President on his September 15th press conference.
(bold added)

A carefully crafted sentence or another slip up?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

edit: bold fixed

[Sven77]

34. Like when Rumsfeld said

a missle hit the pentagon. Feeding the conpspiracy theorists. Tough to prove, im with Alex, I stay away from this one. The damage does look like a bunker buster tho.

[mrgerbik]

36. Ive been thinking about this

and it seems that this would implicate the administration, just as much as coming outright and admitting it all? I mean if they have nothing to hide, whats with the crooked tactics? Just speak the truth and you do away for the need to lie, cover up, dis-inform and confuse.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. See this thread here and check out the blog spot link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x118909

[mrgerbik]

38. thanks - i'm posting from a internet cafe and didn't have time to look...

[canetoad]

37. Definitely not a slip

Your guess is as good as mine as to what the exact intention was.

[mirandapriestly]

60. I kind of think they are offering an "alternate version of events"

Like when Rumsfeld made the "slip" about shooting down flight 93. If they can no longer keep things under wraps, they will say they had to keep certain information secret (ie: "al qaeda" planted explosives) for "national security" reasons. That's why I thought Rumsfeld made the "shot down" remark because that actually would have been SOP, but they wouldn't have wanted to 'upset' the families or something like that, to cover for the fact that there was no sign of a plane.

Also I remember there were arrests witnesses at wtc on 9-11; people were seen being carried out of wtc in handcuffs. Then you never heard about them again, I thought those might be staged for later use.

[sabbat hunter]

75. link?

do you have any link to arrests at the WTC on 9-11, I do not remember any arrests, although my memory is like a sieve sometimes.

[mirandapriestly]

137. I'm so mad I didn't bookmark it, my memory isn't great, but

I recall two accounts of people being arrested or handcuffed by police during the mayhem, after the "hits" before the collapse. One was actually in one of the towers described by someone going down the stairs another was made by one of the emr or firefighters talking to the task force and it was outside the buildings. I wanted to start a thread on it , but I couldn't find the articles or interviews (imagine trying to find: arrests, "world trade center" 9-11). I couldn't make sense of it unless they were looting or something, but it seems like we would have heard in the news, although I think the media wanted to stay away from that kind of stuff.

[Nozebro]

159. That's unfortunate, because it's a little dicey to try and smear a

DU member/messenger right here on the 9/11 forum. Very clever, Ms. MP.

[mirandapriestly]

176. What do you mean?eom

[Nozebro]

77. Those people that were arrested were all sent to Gitmo & other secret

prisons along with everyone else that was involved in the self-attacks in any hands-on way. That's the real purpose of those prisons.

[Klimmer]

88. I have been thinking the same thing for some time now.

We know 9-11 was an inside job. They know 9-11 was an inside job. So why do they go after and in-prison, beat, torture, and send off to secret prisons those who had nothing to do with it?

They need cover and the opportunity to detain, beat, hide, get rid of those who really do know the truth and were involved with carrying out 9-11 from the inside. They just can't have these people walking around and blabbing their mouths can they?

Many sheeple think they are just fighting the war on "terror" in a rather hard-core manner and way, and are willing to break international law to do so. But, in reality they are really hiding a lot of skeletons that they don't want found (by the way, a great way to silence your political enemies also).

I think there is a lot of truth to this line of thinking. It starts to all make more sense the more I contemplate it.

[sabbat hunter]

145. link/proof

any link to back up your claim?

[tenseconds]

39. employees

People like the employees at Cantor Fitzgerald and Marsh and McClennan.Hmmm...

[greyl]

52. Misleading Headlines are Popular Propaganda Tool for CTist Crowd

n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

64. I like this headline

[Nozebro]

78. Great headline for all DUers - including those that deny there is even

such a thing as a "conspiracy". For them, "coordinated group action" might be a better way of describing what is becoming increasingly difficult even for the most hardcore OCT'er to deny.

[greyl]

147. That doesn't argue against what I said at all. nt

[mirandapriestly]

58. It couldn't be more clear.

and the attack of the DU "opinion influencers" above usually means someone is on the right track.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Have you seen this discussion miranda?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x118909

The blog spot link has a pretty good discusion on what we are seeing above, in all repects, from OP to replys.

edited to add - As you know, I don't buy into the prevailing myth of incompetance. I tend toward "crazy like a fox." That's not to say that bush himself is brillent, only that he's got at least average intelligence - and his handlers certainly are sharp people.

[mirandapriestly]

135. I'm with you on the incompetence - they aren't.

If they were "incompetent", they'd be in jail. I think Bushler is stupid intellectually -"incurious" as someone said, but he is cold and calculating in a criminal way and determined to get what he wants. He is a very poor public speaker which is why people think he is more stupid than he is. I also think he is living in fear that he is going to get caught or have to be held accountable for what he has done. The Jersey girl's movie had the most revealing footage of him I've ever seen, that was perhaps the best part of the documentary for me.

[AntiFascist]

83. I would agree with that,, particularly in light that this thread is...

getting rated up and on the Greatest Page.

[achtung_circus]

66. Bookmark for shits and giggles

tonight, when I have the time to appreciate it.

[Tin Man]

67. I really wish Skinner would provide us with an "un-recommend" capability

...cause I'd wear-out that sonofabitch.

[PurgedVoter]

74. Man, I am so annoyed by all the nuts that come out on these talks.

I really mean this. Klimmer comes out with an observation and his perspective, and suddenly is attacked on all sides by nitpick nut cases who never tire of dogging these conversations. They only attack. They never discuss. They turn it personal immediately. They have no proof, but are POSITIVE the official story is correct, even though, we have solid proof that the official story has been altered and falsified officially more than once.

Some one brings up a bit of data on 9/11 or a set of data that seems to match, what happens, not just an attack on the theory, no a personal attack on the person that brought it out.
These crazed nuts just leap out and gang up in unison to attack anyone who presents a view against the administrations story of 9/11.
Forget conspiracy theory, it should be fairly obvious that there is a conspiracy to spin 9/11. Come on, a "Free" mini-series to try to place all blame on anyone other that the president who ignored warnings? If 40 plus million is paid to do that, what sums would be paid to jump every blog about 9/11 questions.

You attack dogs are convincing me of a conspiracy. Leave the patriots like Klimmer, who seek justice and truth alone. He may not be right in his assumptions, but his data is presented with links, and your arguments are simply smeared with bile. At the beginning of your next post, before you attack Klimmer, lets hear you denounce Bush and all of his administration. Here is my hat in the ring;

I denounce George W. Bush and all of his works.

[Nozebro]

76. Just be thankful we don't have to put up w/a bunch of people who

post messages designed to ridicule 9/11 Truth Seekers, distort facts, disrupt legitimate discussion/debate, suppress truth, cause 1,000s of posts to be written in response to someone's "opinion" about the meaning of "free-fall", "speed v acceleration" and on and on.

I think we're fortunate to have a seemingly-large group of posters who can discuss a wide variety of known crimes that were committed by two or more people, and do so without ever labeling said crimes as being "conspiracies", because as we all know, such things simply don't happen in the real world. Cops, prosecutors, and their investigators just say people engage in conspiracies so that they can charge them with the NON-existent, no-such-thing crime of "conspiracy".

If we DID have to put with posters whose motives can't be and shouldn't be pointed out, it would make it tedious to discuss and debate the implications of 9/11 being an inside job.

[Nozebro]

80. This is a HUGE embarassment to the OCT'ers crowd.

Who wants to predict the next shoe to drop?

[Ka hrnt]

95. I absolutely love this "argument"...

"(9-11 Truth Movement is spreading like wildfire)"

My arse. This is the exact same BS argument the Intelligent Design people use in an attempt to gain credence.

:rofl:

[Klimmer]

110. You don't agree? This summer especially has been a huge . . .

turning point. Many 9-11 truth conferences, seminars, MSM of all types has even been forced to confront what we are coming forward with, then the 5 year memorial. It isn't forbidden to mention that 9-11 is an inside job anymore. We even have very brave patriots, fighting for freedom in academia professors being attacked for their 9-11 views in the Universities. Sure people still scoff and roll their eyes, however they are certainly more willing to contemplate it at least for a moment. Alex Jones has a great article on his site about the overwhelming change in attitude of the police officers, firemen, and the first responders in NY city that he witnessed in NY city this past 9-11-06, during the 5 year memorial. Two years ago he was getting a lot of flack from them still, however this year he had overwhelming support from all of them, and had many come up to him out of the blue to thank him and tell him to keep up the good work. The word is getting out. The veil is coming down. People are looking into it, and the physical evidence and facts, and the means, motive, and opportunity evidence are clearly pointing to this criminal cabal administration.

No matter what, I believe Truth will win in the end.

I can even talk (although it is often a short conversation) a little about MIHOP with my ultra-conservative GOP loving retired USAF Lt. Col father-in-law. He still doesn't buy it, but he brought a copy of the Time magazine for me to read this past weekend (even though I had already read it on line) regarding the 9-11 Truth movement. The fact is he isn't willing to look into it, and not willing to look at the overwhelming evidence, and pretty much scoffs at the possibility of MIHOP. Talk about a closed mind. But there is improvement. At least we can talk about it, if just for a moment. If he ever were to seriously look into it he would see the truth. The evidence is overwhelming. If I could just get Dr. Bob Bowman, a retired USAF Lt. Col. combat veteran, father of "Star Wars," and fellow 9-11 truth-er, running for Congress in FL, to give my father-in-law a call and talk some sense into him it would all be better (lol) .

[Ka hrnt]

127. Lots of empty words and ...

...not one quantifiable piece of data. How many people are involved now versus, say, two years ago, before this "tipping point" of yours?

"The evidence is overwhelming."

Uh huh...that's why you're in the minority... :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. It's Mockable Premises Such As This That Keep The True 9-11 Truth Movement

completely untouchable by sane americans. Absurdity such as this muddies the waters with insanity to such a mockable degree that those of us, on DU or otherwise, completely get disgusted from wanting to explore the facts further. This is some of the silliest logical argument I've ever heard to justify an explosion at the WTC towers. Sorry, but that is just simply my honest opinion of the OP.

[whistle]

99. I heard something about George Bush admitting to explosions at

...the WTC when the towers and #7 came down. Does anyone have the video cut of Dubya actually saying such a thing? Or is this a hoax?

[Ninja Jordan]

100. I swear I saw a TV program that claimed #7 was actually detonated.

The man said that there was TNT in #7 that was ignited after the building had been cleared. The justification was that structural damage had made it pointless to leave #7 standing, so it was detonated. AM I DREAMING???

[bbinacan]

103. Pleasant dreams. n/t

[Ninja Jordan]

104. Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

I swear I saw this somewhere. Maybe an Alex Jones documentary or something.

[Ninja Jordan]

146. No, I was right. Type "Larry Silverstein" into google.

[Sinti]

101. Neither, it is a simple case of reading way too much into something * said

He seems to be trying to defend torture, and uses information gotten from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an example of why it's a good idea.

This be the quote in question:

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

Here be the full transcript.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

No cause for alarm. ;)

[Wonk]

102. I guess you missed the big thread on this last night

which has since been moved (and rightfully so) to the 9/11 forum.

Happy reading.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=119090&mesg_id=119090

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

105. One Of The Most Ridiculous Declarations I've Ever Heard. Some People Are

so deluded that when they fish and catch a boot, they actually convince themselves it's a Tuna.

[MervinFerd]

108. Well, no. Not an inside job. Bush* said: "the operatives were instructed..

"HE TOLD US THE OPERATIVES HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO ENSURE THAT THE EXPLOSIVES WENT OFF AT A HIGH -- A POINT THAT WAS HIGH ENOUGH TO PREVENT PEOPLE TRAPPED ABOVE FROM ESCAPING.”

So, Mohammed said that -his- operatives planted explosives. NOT the CIA. Clear as day.

Not that isn't all total unmitigated bullshit.

[whistle]

109. It will be September 19th tomorrow, four days after this press

...conference. Why has the press not gotten clarification on this statement from George Bush or White House spokes people?

[dailykoff]

119. Ha!

I knew they couldn't hold out for much longer. Here come the sneaky pete limited hangouts, LOL.

Memo to Prof. Jones: report to your classroom on Monday. :)

[Nozebro]

150. We'll get lots more limited hangouts as well as modified ltd. hangouts.

Combined with more "actions" designed to shut people up. More firings, maybe some more out-in-the-open professional hits on certain people (like the young 9/11 scholar who got "offed" in Minneapolis), on-going "intel chatter suggesting Al & Osama are planning another attack", and depending on how things are shaping up for the November elections, maybe even another nasty false flag terror operation/event.

Oh, and rest easy, OCT'ers. The PR campaigns will continue into the indefinite future. I have it on good word that new contracts are being ironed-out and readied for signing.

[HamdenRice]

148. Maybe he didn't say "planned attacks" but "plane attacks"

According to Jeff Wells of Rigorous Intuition (DU's Minstrel Boy), the Guardian transcript of the speech has Bush saying "plane attacks" not "planned attacks." The White House transcript, however, rendered Bush's comments as "planned attacks."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6083135,00.html

<quote>

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

<unquote>

He has some interesting observations also about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's testimony to the 9/11 Commission -- namely that in Pakistan, it is widely believed that he was not in fact arrested, and that according to the Commission, they gave questions to his interrogators and received back transcripts, but never directly questioned him themselves.

http://rigint.blogspot.com/

[Make7]

156. It actually sounds like Bush was referring to this:

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON. DC 20511

Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program
<- snip ->
The detention of terrorists disrupts -- at least temporarily -- the plots they were involved in, saving the lives not only of Americans but also of countless of men, women, and children around the globe:
<- snip ->
7. The Tall Buildings Plot. Working with information from detainees, the US disrupted a plot to blow up tall buildings in the United States. KSM later described how he had directed operatives to ensure the buildings were high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out of the windows, thus ensuring their deaths from smoke inhalation.

http://www.dni.gov/announcements/content/TheHighValueDetaineeProgram.pdf

Document release date September 6, 2006.

Posted by Klimmer:

* 4 – 5 minutes in Bush tells us how the questioning (torture?) of Khalid Sheik Mohammed has led to the following information . . .

“The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. HE TOLD US THE OPERATIVES HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO ENSURE THAT THE EXPLOSIVES WENT OFF AT A HIGH -- A POINT THAT WAS HIGH ENOUGH TO PREVENT PEOPLE TRAPPED ABOVE FROM ESCAPING.”

See and hear it for yourself straight from the horse’s ass, oops . . . I mean mouth, at the white house.
<- snip ->
There you have it. Bush admits to now knowing explosives were placed in the WTC towers. He can’t escape the truth anymore (9-11 Truth Movement is spreading like wildfire) and looks for the nearest Patsy, thereby placing the blame of explosives squarely on Khalid and Al Queda (but we really know who Al CIA-duh is don’t we?)

Press conference on September 15, 2006.

Let's see.... disrupted terrorist plots, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping". Could just be a coincidence....

- Make7

[dailykoff]

165. Evidence extracted under torture can be useful, can't it?

Especially when OCTAs need a little cover for your latest lie.

And now we know why Witchfinder General is so fond of don't-call-it-torture.

[Make7]

178. So you agree that Bush was referring to "The Tall Buildings Plot"...

... that was reportedly disrupted and was not referring to the World Trade Center?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

179. I think you're missing the point,

so let me spell it out: information extracted under torture is information that the US wants the torture victim to confess to.

They we have to ask, why would the US want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to confess to a "tall buildings plot" featuring explosives?

And the answer is, because they're indirectly admitting that explosives were used to demolish the World Trade Center, as the world (most of it) has known for some time.

In other words, Junior was sending up a cover story trial balloon.

Any questions?

[Make7]

181. RE: "Any questions?"

Do you agree that Bush was referring to "The Tall Buildings Plot" that was reportedly disrupted and that he was not referring to the World Trade Center as claimed in the original message?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

182. Anwer: no.

One is a figleaf for the other.

[Make7]

185. So was Bush referring to "The Tall Buildings Plot"?

Or was he referring to the "Planes Operation"¹?

- Make7

1 - The "Planes Operation" was Al Qaeda's name for the 9/11 attacks according to the interrogation records of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

[dailykoff]

187. He was referring indirectly to the explosives in the WTC.

Notice how he stumbled over the careful wording, as he often does when he hits a tricky part.

[Make7]

189. When I'm in the mood for a little fiction, I like to read your posts. (nt)