9-11 conspiracy poll

[Optimist Prime]

You know...if there really was a group of people that organized to do such things as kill a preisdient or carry out massive direct attacks....the people who make up conspirary theories should stop giving them ideas.

[Deke4life]

I am not fond of "conspiracy theory" either for many reasons. However, what I am concerned with is truth. And, some of what the government (9-11 Commission) is trying to claim is true actually is not. Also, much of the lack of truth from this commission isn't merely manipulated data, but rather selective information coverage.

[FHwku]

Popular Mechanics - 9/11 Debunking the Myths

sites internet publications and conspiracy theories, and addresses the theories expressed here, and on "alternative news" and "investigation" websites.

One of the many things that bother me about the conspiracy websites:

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

If the extent of your research is watching the video, you could at least site a credible source. e.g. an expert on any relevant subject other than blogging.

if lifesaver can debunk the Pentagon/plane/missle conpiracy theory with a beer can and a sidewalk, then the theory didn't hold much water in the first place. (the PM link also addresses that theory, in case you don't believe in beer cans and sidewalks.)

i support anyone out there trying to find "the truth," but just throwing out ideas (really bad ones,) does a diservice to everyone who actually puts out facts. even googling for facts on this was needle/hastack, turning up a googolplex of material to sift through.

however, some theories turn out to be true. Mets' relief pitcher, Roger McDowell spit on Kramer and Newman.

[Deke4life]

The March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. Popular Mechanic's senior researcher, 25-year-old **Benjamin Chertoff**, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

"Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads. "After an in-depth investigation, Popular Mechanics answers with the truth," it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

The **Chertoff** article goes on to confront the "poisonous claims" of 16 "myths" spun by "extremist" 9/11 researchers like myself with "irrefutable facts," mostly provided by individuals in the employ of the U.S. government.

Important:

But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? He is none other than the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

[Deke4life]

Source of info above from American Free Press. Or just call Popular mechanics and ask for yourself.

I still maintain the concerns associated with building number 7 and am repulsed by the whitewashing propaganda by Chertoff that provides no real explaination of what happened - and unfairly labels free thinking people like myself and others an "extremist" or "conspiracy theorist." Chertoff, of course being the cousin of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/ - this is a good essay explaining Chertoff's propaganda, although I don't agree with all of it.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Deke4life
"Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads. "After an in-depth investigation, Popular Mechanics answers with the truth," it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

Did you even read the PM story? Here's their take on WTC 7:

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Now, this is an actual hypothesis, with actual physical data to support it.

Do you have any data to support your hypothesis, namely that explosive devices were used to drop the building?

If not . . . well . . . why are you bumping this?

And how freaking specious is your link between DHS and this article? Simply awful logic.

[FHwku]

Originally posted by Deke4life
But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

the PM pages i linked answer that and site sources. here's part of the NIST response to WTC 7 (from
here. )

Page 8 of the PM link also has all of the reporters listed, and page 9 has the sources used.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation....

PM feedback reply

Important:

But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? He is none other than the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Everybody has cousins. Maria Shriver was a Kennedy cousin and NBC anchor. It doesn't mean anything.

[Deke4life]

*Please refer to the video links I have made available earlier in which Larry Silverstein (the owner of building seven) admits on camera that he told firefighters to pull the bulding.* - also Dan Rather corroborated this story live as the building fell.

The article makes no mention of the most cited evidence of the fact that building number seven was destroyed via controlled demolition.

The building colapsed precisely in vertical fashion.

The building had the classic crimp as it was falling that any demolition engineer will tell you is part of a controlled demolition.

The building colapsed at almost the rate of free fall.

The building colapsed into a tiny pile of rubble.

No other steel building has fallen due to fire. Some have even burned for weeks.

The fires were minimal at the time of the colapase - as seen by any footage of the event(again watch links provided)* - and what Dan Rather had to say about the colpase as it happened when he said the building was "deliberately destroyed" live on air. all found in the links on the first post

The article also lets NIST's Shyam Sunder sell the "progressive collapse" of Building 7:

"What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." Note the guarded language Sunder uses to describe the extent of the collapse.

The reader is led to believe that the collapse of a "section" could lead to the total collapse of the building, when in fact there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel frame buildings outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

The independent research (not a cousin to Secretary Chertoff, and posts all testing data and procedure) of www.physics911.net of course shows that the building was much more durable than Chertoff states and that the only thing that could have brought down the building would have been well placed explosives.

Which of course is exactly what the Building's owners said took it down, as well as Dan Rather as the Building fell - granted probably a slip of the tounge, but nonetheless I can understand why he would say building seven was deliberately destroyed as that is the most logical explaination for watching a steel building plummit to the groung like no other steel building ever has in the history of the world (except by well placed explosives).

this article is a total whitewash

Oh yeah ... and the mastermind behind this peice of propaganda, Mr. Chertoff, is none other than the cousin of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a department that rests on the legitimacy of the "official story"

[FHwku]

The equations Derrick Grimmer sites on physics911.net find no fault at supposing information, injecting theoretical variables (demolitions ordinance/thermite) or getting close enough with their own math, but find fault, for example, in MIT and "establisment" (yes, he said "establishment") engineers failure explain everything in one report. or at least debunk the flurry of theories he has.

The PM link, page 5, reports more extensive damage to WTC 7 than just one level. not to mention it burned for 7 hours. also, recordings of Silverstein from a PBS interview are taken out of context.
"i remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. and i said, 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is-is pull it. uh, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

the decision was made to "pull it," or demolish WTC 7, and then the building collapsed. but just because one happened after the other, does not mean the first event caused the second. it takes more than a couple hours to put plans together for demolition, add to that a burning building.
a building in the middle of NYC is sustains damage and is burning for 7 hrs, and it's 9/11, if Billy the conspiracy theorist leaves Syracuse on train A...will he recognize the possibility that the building collapsed sans conspiracy?

**** Derrick Grimmer ****

Derrick Grimmer ran unsuccessfully as a "Grass Roots" candidate for senate in Minnesota in 1988 and again in Iowa as a US Representative in 1994. He campaigned for the repeal of marijuana prohibition.

"Derrick Grimmer, scientist at Iowa State’s Microelectronics Research Center, believes prohibiting drug use is a method the government uses to control citizens." from Cannabis News

Grimmer: "Terror politics is the method being used to gain control over energy resources..."
(Grimmer wants to remove petroleum as a substrate for the "miltary machine")
Which is why a solar company he helped create, negotiated a multi-milliondollar contract with the U.S. Army.

[Deke4life]

For those who are not aware, "pull it" is a term for controlled demolition. All over that same video, "pull" it used to mean the exact same thing(just ask and demolition expert). The problem arises that it takes weeks if not months for experts to precisely create the mechanisms for a demolition to take place - nothing taken out of context here.

Also Dan Rather said live on air for all to hear that the building was taken out deliberately by well placed explosives. - nothing out of context here - just what he was observing

And no wonder he said this - because no other building in the history of the world has ever fallen in the manner that seven fell except by well placed expllosives. -

A steel building has never fallen in that manner due to fire:

That is what is important about the well documented work of physics911, not someone's libertarian ideology

And then we have the classic crimp pattern as the building falls, which is what any demolition expert will tell you is part of a controled demolition.

and watching any of the films of the colapse, the fires were obviously minimal - many other steel buildings have burned for weeks totally engulfed in flames and they were fine

And then the building falls at the rate of free fall in a perfectly semetrical pattern - again ask any engineer about this one

while at the same time the buildings owners says he told firefighters to pull the building and even Dan Rather agreed when he said that the building was "deliberately destroyed" - you really dont get any more obvious than that


No steel building In The History Of The World has Ever been taken out this way (excpet by explosives) - an obvious controlled demolition and one that would take weeks to plan

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Deke4life
For those who are not aware, "pull it" is a term for controlled demolition. All over that same video, "pull" it used to mean the exact same thing(just ask and demolition expert). The problem arises that it takes weeks if not months for experts to precisely create the mechanisms for a demolition to take place - nothing taken out of context here.

This actually makes your hypothesis FAR LESS PROBABLE than the one offered by Grimmer.

Originally posted by Deke4life
Also Dan Rather said live on air for all to hear that the building was taken out deliberately by well placed explosives. - nothing out of context here - just what he was observing.

Dan Rather, for many, lacks even basic credibility as a JOURNALIST - his opinions on demolition are useless, baseless, and contribute nothing to your theory.

Originally posted by Deke4life
And no wonder he said this - because no other building in the history of the world has ever fallen in the manner that seven fell except by well placed expllosives. -

Strawman. No hijacked planes had been used as weapons until earlier that day.

Originally posted by Deke4life
A steel building has never fallen in that manner due to fire:

FACT: steel's tensile strength is reduced greatly by extreme heat (1200+ degrees F).

FACT: seven hours of 1800+ degree heat had taken place inside the building.

FACT: concussive impact from debris had removed part of the building's face, including load-bearing supports.

It is not absurd to extrapolate that these three facts would have eliminated the ability of the building to support itself. These don't even rely on the "diesel in the basement" hypothesis, either - which you conveniently ignore.

AGAIN - the burden is on YOU to disprove these concepts, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Deke4life
That is what is important about the well documented work of physics911, not someone's libertarian ideology

And then we have the classic crimp pattern as the building falls, which is what any demolition expert will tell you is part of a controled demolition.

I request a citation on this - first from an independant demolitions expert, then photos showing the crimp, then testimony from a demolitions expert saying that, categorically, this pattern could not come from anything other than controlled demolition.

It appears at least some experts disagree with you- they're cited in the PM paper.

Originally posted by Deke4life
and watching any of the films of the colapse, the fires were obviously minimal - many other steel buildings have burned for weeks totally engulfed in flames and they were fine

It is totally inappropriate to claim something is "obviously minimal" using post hoc analysis of film - you're quickly falling off the logic cliff here, and this does nothing to support your hypothesis.

also - cites? and don't lay the "read the site!!!" gag on me - find an independent citation for things you reference as 'facts'

Originally posted by Deke4life
And then the building falls at the rate of free fall in a perfectly semetrical pattern - again ask any engineer about this one

while at the same time the buildings owners says he told firefighters to pull the building and even Dan Rather agreed when he said that the building was "deliberately destroyed" - you really dont get any more obvious than that

Um . . . both towers fell in 'perfectly symmetrical' manners, IIRC - but you won't extend this hypothesis to them, right?

Also - the Rather bit is tiring, but I'll say it one more time: he is not an expert in what he was speaking of, and he has a long history of using figurative language and overstepping his knowledge in situations. He resigned for similar overstepping. The credibility here is nil.

Originally posted by Deke4life
No steel building In The History Of The World has Ever been taken out this way (excpet by explosives) - an obvious controlled demolition and one that would take weeks to plan

I can't even begin on this line - but please, address the concerns above, and we can start to address why your thesis here is not a synthesis of your previous points.

Let's deal with this in a logical fashion, no?

[Deke4life]

Ok ... Ill make it easy for all to understand... The owner of the building said he pulled the building - how is that somehow improbable... I guess his image was somehow superimposed on the screen...

As far as the crimp goes in the building, watch it for yourself as the building falls (*I suggest you watch the clip provided in the first post in its *entirity**,... and others of the colapse) Dan Rather was merely describibng the surreal image he was watching

Ok.. and modern steel buildings dont fall in that manner due to fire!... please just try to find one... you may want to look in Madrid Spain at the tower that was totally engulfed in flames for days and never fell (also seen in video link). Smoke towering out of this building thousands of feet in the air

It takes massive amounts of oxygen and highly explosive fuel well dispensed with the O2 to create even the beginings of what could start to damage steel beams. - just google that info on any legitimate engineering site or ask any demolition expert

Very Important:

And once again... Never in the history of the world has a modern steel building colapsed in this manner except by explosives.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Deke4life
Ok.. and modern steel buildings dont fall in that manner due to fire!... please just try to find one... you may want to look in Madrid Spain at the tower that was totally engulfed in flames for days and never fell (also seen in video link). Smoke towering out of this building thousands of feet in the air

AFAIK this is NOT an analogous situation; the WTC was a more involved situation beyond simple fire.

Originally posted by Deke4life
And once again... Never in the history of the world has a modern steel building colapsed in this manner except by explosives.

To imply that there is historical correlation between this and the situation you're addressing is VERY near-sighted, unless you can prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a situation in which a building could similarly collapse without explosives.

If you cannot prove this (past using historical reference, which is an incomplete proof), then you cannot utilize the historical reference for anything past anecdotal evidence.

Your proof sucks, is what I'm telling you.

[Deke4life]

How is it a different situation?

The buildings owner said he pulled the building!

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Deke4life
Ok.. and modern steel buildings dont fall in that manner due to fire!... please just try to find one... you may want to look in Madrid Spain at the tower that was totally engulfed in flames for days and never fell (also seen in video link). Smoke towering out of this building thousands of feet in the air

AFAIK this is NOT an analogous situation; if you don't see why, we're officially done interacting here.

Originally posted by Deke4life
And once again... Never in the history of the world has a modern steel building colapsed in this manner except by explosives.

To imply that there is historical correlation between this and the situation you're addressing is VERY near-sighted, unless you can prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a situation in which a building could similarly collapse without explosives.

If you cannot prove this (past using historical reference, which is an incomplete proof), then you cannot utilize the historical reference for anything past anecdotal evidence.

Your proof sucks, is what I'm telling you.