Skip to main content

Today, Sunday, September 11th at 7:06PM E.S.T., ABC News Radio Affiliates on the east coast will air a 1 hour pre-recorded special featuring author and theologian David Ray Griffin, 9/11 survivor and RICO suit plaintiff William Rodgriquez and 9/11 widow Lorie Van Auken, who recently presented at Congresswoman McKinney's Congressional Briefing on July 22.  The program will for the first time on a major new news network give voice to the those who have challenged the 9/11 Commission's findings, who have suggested a pervasive cover-up or the involvement of government conspirators.

The program will re-air hourly at 8:06, 9:06, 10:06, etc. this evening.  It has already been aired by two affiliates and is now available to over 3000 affiliates nationally.  

Please tune in, record the show, and let ABC know that you are interested in similar programs digging deeper into the challenges posed to the official narrative for the events of September 11th.

Please take a moment now to email your friends and colleagues and let them know about this encouraging breakthrough.

Those of us who do not believe the robber-barron warfare gang may find , solace in this crack in the paradigm. But to take full advantage this needs to be spread far and wide now. I'd write more but I wanted to get it out...

Originally posted to thor on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 01:06 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Heard Griffin (3.50)
    on Cspan a few months ago.  He makes an impressive case...if I recall, he doesn't offer an opinion himself, but presents evidence and discusses possibilities.
  •  Thanks! (4.00)
    Thanks for the heads-up!!!
  •  Got links? (4.00)

    "You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." ~ Mark Twain

    by Bugsby on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 01:29:58 PM PDT

  •  Not to be cynical... (4.00)
    but watch this diary fall off into the Either Zone.
    Without many coments or disscussion. I have watched as very importatnt diaries such as this posted to have the board inudated w/mean nothing posts shortly after.
    Paranoid? Ask yourself who runs this country...
    Please note there is a difference in Conspiracism and Power Structure Research.

    If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you, but if you really made them think, they'll kill you.-Albert Einstein

    •  Probably no conspiracy (none)
      Unless you consider the interest of the average person (Dem or Repub) in stuff some of us would view as trivia a 'conspiracy'. I would agree that lots of important stuff gets scrolled to a quick death, especially as DailyKos gets busier and busier.

      In my view, this is a technology flaw. Once a Scoop-based site gets to the volume Kos currently has, I think the signal-to-noise ratio becomes a problem. We need to figure out a better way than simplistic scroll-off to give things a better chance to get read.

      But I am starting to think that posting here is presently a waste of time, 'cuz nobody reads the stuff anymore.

      •  What David Ray Griffins point is: (4.00)
        The governments "official" story is nothing but a conspiracy theory, and it has huge holes in it. ALL of the debris was immediately removed and no one was allowed to do any forensics on it at all. FEMA only spent $650,000 on "investigating" what happened. WTC building 7 was a controled demolition, and the 9/11 commission did not even mention it. On and on, there is a huge coverup here. To much evidence just ignored.  reopen911.org

        "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

        by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 02:55:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have to agree a little bit (none)
        i think it would be cool if there were some kind of 'box' i could put diaries into that i have read but i want to keep track of as they develop. doing that would bump them off the recommended list as far as my user name is concerned, allowing other diaries to move into view.

        that's if scoop can handle such a thing.

        i will smack the next person who says 'liberal bias.'

        by internik on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:40:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bookmark them. (none)
          Then they will be on the bookmark list.

          What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

          by Demfem on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:44:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah, but... (none)
            they would still be on the recommended list when i came back to dkos. what i'm saying is that it would be cool to set some diaries aside so that i could see the diaries that are hovering just out of range of being recommended.

            either that, or a way to see a list of more diaries ranked by recommendation factor.

            i will smack the next person who says 'liberal bias.'

            by internik on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:12:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Ask others to recommend -- new KOSsacks (4.00)
      ... might still be getting used to what the Recommend function does (or be unaware of the button up at the top/right.)

      Oh, I guess I just reminded people. :-)

      •  What button? (none)
        I keep trying to figure out how to recommend something. I don't see any button. Do you have to be a subscriber? Thanks for the help.

        I don't like Bizarro World... I want to go home to America.

        by willers on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 08:44:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sometimes the button is near the bottom of the (none)
          page. I'ts always at the bottom of the shortcut menu on the right of the screen, below Menu, About, and Tools. Sometimes this whole section gets bumped to the bottom, resulting from the diarist not closing  block quotes, I think.
    •  Ah, proven wrong my friend... :o) (none)
      ...you've made the Recommended Diaries list!

      And thanks for the heads-up...I've seen Griffen on C-Span and he is as credible as they come.

      Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

      by ilona on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:24:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  #1 right now (none)
      Feels good to be wrong, eh?  

      (I've been aching to be wrong lately.  But unfortunately, my cynicism has proven right so often that it's about to drive me crazy.)

    •  Hard not to be... (4.00)
      ... when anything that even hints at tin-hat-ery gets you derided, even here at America's Progressive Center. The very, very, very sad thing is that there is a mountain of hard historical evidence that governments routinely sacrifice their citizens to inspire fear, thus "motivating" the rest of the population into following its lead. It's not a theory; it happens, has happened and will happen again. And given the absolute evil of the current crop of numbnuts, why is it so hard to imagine they somehow had a hand in 9/11, if only to look the other way at the crucial moment?

      Hey, just 'cos you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you!

      I maintain that it's not that the Republicans are too evil, it's that the Democrats aren't evil enough.

      by peirone on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:35:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  abc in australia? (none)
      there is no radio show on like you suggest, what are you smoking?
  •  Can you be a bit more specific? (none)
    What sort of government "coverup" is referred to here?

    The term can be applied to all sorts of things - some of which I believe are credible, others which I don't.

    For example, when folks start saying there was no plane crash at the Pentagon, I have a little trouble with that sort of stuff.

    •  Griffin is both good and bad (4.00)
      Some folks here just blast the guy and dismiss everything because of his interest in the (very hard to prove) WTC demolition theory and the (even shakier) Pentagon theories. But he does also do a very serious examination of the core non-response issues. I see him as an 80/20 -- 80 percent covering good material, 20 percent worrying about stuff that makes him look kooky.
      •  Yeah...the demolition thing... (none)
        ...is the point where I have to draw the line, too. I'm not sure either way.  I just don't know if I can go that far without real proof at the moment; but, like you say, cg, he's great at putting a lot of the other evidence together and presenting it in a solid fashion.

        Your 80/20 ratio is a good one.

        Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

        by ilona on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:28:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  WTC7 was a controlled demolition (2.85)
          Watch this video of it and tell me it wasn't.

          Remember -- it wasn't hit by any airplanes.

          It barely had any fires burning in it.

          And even the NIST had a real hard time rationalizing how it could have collapsed.

          No steel-frame building has EVER collapsed due to fire.  Ever.  Except on 9/11 when three of them did.  

          The twin towers, yes, were hit by airplanes full of fuel.  

          WTC7 wasn't.  

          WTC7 is NEVER mentioned in any of the "stories" of 9/11, even the National Geographic show I watched a couple of weeks ago.

          They simply ignore it.  Why?  Because they can't explain it.  The official story has no explanation for it whatsoever.

          Here's the video:

          http://reopen911.org/video/30secondAdForBuilding7.mov

          •  WTC7 was badly damaged (4.00)
            Several pieces of the North Tower went through the building. There were several holes and about a 1/3 of the facing was gone.  One of the elevators was knocked into the lobby!  It was on fire and inspectors reported the building was creaking and groaning.  Absolutely nothing mysterious about that going down.  

            The reports of light damage may have come after South Tower went down but before North Tower did.

          •  Too silly for words ! (3.40)
            have you any idea how much work it takes to set up a demolition of a tower.
            But why wait for some hours after the airplanes hit ?
            Why bother with the planes at all, remember the WTC carpark bombs some years before, but any demolition expert would have said THAT was a waste of time, you need to start the implosion from the top.
            And I suppose the pentagon damage can be explained by what ?

            You really should take up ""intelligent design"", its just as barmy as you.

            •  actually you're wrong (1.66)
               in controlled demolitions they start from the bottom.

              Why are you so anxious to believe  GWB's account of the day's events?

              Do you think the Bush administration is telling the truth about 9/11?

              If so, why?

              •  Tin foil (3.45)
                Tower 7 stored tanks of diesel fuel in the sub-levels. That is what caught on fire and caused the total destruction of the building.

                Tower 7 being blown up by demolition explosives is pure tin-foil.

                Yes, tin-foil.

                If you really think with all the shit going on that day, that the government had the ability to set of a demolition of Tower 7, then you are deluding yourself.

                Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein.

                by GregNYC on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:03:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  that shows the difference in our paradigms (2.60)
                  If you are starting with the assumption that 9/11 was an unexpected "terror" attack, then your point has validity.

                  If you are starting with the assumption that it was something else, then your point has no validity.

                  the NIST study is based on the ASSUMPTION that the buildings fell of their own accord, by accident.   It was an assumption in search of evidence.  They admitted when they first published the story that they couldn't figure out why building 7 fell, and they admitted they'd have to go back and look at it harder to figure it out.

                  If you open your mind to other paradigms, things become suddenly much clearer.  And you realize the least logical explanation for the whole affair is the official story.

                  •  Have fun... (3.40)
                    Believe what you want in whatever paradigm you wish to springboard off of.

                    I think this whole claim is pure lunacy.

                    You call it your paradigm, I'll call it tinfoil.

                    It's ridiculous arguments like this (pure tinfoil) that make people on the left look like the Spongebob Dobsons of the right.

                    I'm not wasting my time debating tin-foil.

                    Have fun with your arguments.

                    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein.

                    by GregNYC on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:18:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The thing is... (3.16)
                      ...most of you criticizing those who doubt the official story have never bothered to explore the event--truthfully.  There are so many inconsistencies in the official conspiracy theory it just begs questions--and answers.  All those questions were swept under the rug by right-wing spin and you "sane" people on the left.  Tell me you've studied the time line and the evidence and still believe George Bush and I'll accept that.  But most of you are too "good" and too "smart" to take a long, honest look.  I don't believe everything anyone says about the events on 9/11, but I sure have a ton of questions about what we were told.  Since when is a questioning mind a foolish thing?  We just empower conspirators by never raising a question to them.  And remember you've twisted the word "conspirators" beyond recognition.  It's simply two or more people engaging in a plan to do harm.  (Something like that.)  You don't think that ever happens?  Wow.  I'm impressed at your naivety!
                      •  Questions are fine (4.00)
                        But conclusions can only be drawn based upon facts, evidence and peer-reviewed research.

                        Otherwise some of the 9/11 theories sound much like the "intelligent design" wishful thinking of the other side.

                        There are real stories to follow, such as the op-ed in WP today by Michael Hirsh of Newsweek, who is asking why is there no clear strategy in the "war on terror", other than the sound bites of democracy and freedom on the march.

                        Or the NYT magazine story on the fact that only about 40 US troops were assigned to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora. No wonder he escaped.

                        Or the fact that everyone on the planet knows Bin Laden is in Pakistan, but we, the sole superpower, is impotent to go after him.

                        •  Or how.. (3.16)
                          ...19 kids fresh out of beginning flight training managed to flummox the entire U.S. defense system and ram planes into buildings for a couple of hours without interference.  That's especially curious since there was so much documented excitement then about this very scenario.  Of course Condi hadn't heard about it.  It was unheard of to her that such a thing could have ever been thought of.  (Does the acronym PDB mean anything to anyone?)

                          Please define "peer-reviewed research."

                          David Ray Griffin simply asks for a real investigation. I think one is in order.  Preferably one not headed up by Bush/Rice crony.

                        •  we're not the least bit impotent (4.00)
                          We chose not to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan.  We let him escape.

                          Listen, I was 100% behind George Bush after 9/11.   I was all for the war in Afghanistan, I was ready to go over there myself if they wanted me to.  

                          But when we didn't go into Pakistan, I started to smell something.   I remember getting insanely frustrated at this and thinking Why the FUCK aren't we going in there?  With the political capital we had at the time, we could have gone anywhere and had the support of the entire planet.   We should have said "get the hell out of the way, Musharef, we're going into get him"

                          Did we do that?  No.  What did GWB start talking about instead?

                          Iraq.

                          That's when I started doing this research, and that's what ultimately led me to DU and then to here, and that's what led me to discover that the official story of 9/11 is a bunch of CRAP.

                          Learning that it's a bunch of CRAP, one can then only speculate as to what really happened.

                          When you start doing that, the most logical explanation becomes that it was an inside job, done by the people who stood to benefit from it.

                          Such as George Bush and Company.   Do you think he ever would have won a 2nd term, or even had a CHANCE at it, without 9/11?  Do you think he could have invaded two countries and secured Iraq's oil supplies without 9/11?  Do you think he would have delivered what Saudi Arabia wanted -- a Saudi Arabia free of American military bases -- without 9/11?  

                          No, no, no, and no.

                          And would Halliburton have gotten the billions of dollars from "rebuilding" a country that our other military/industrial contractors "blew up" if it hadn't been for 9/11?

                          No.

                          What did Bin Laden and radical Islam get out of 9/11?  

                          What did George Bush and Co get out of 9/11?

                          Who got more?

                      •  ain't that the truth (4.00)
                        It's never the people who have actually read Griffin's book, or who have studied the stinking black hole that is 9/11.  

                        It's always people who are simply extremely anxious to not look "kooky" i.e. "out of the mainstream".

                        Well take a look at your mainstream media and tell me that IT is what should be the norml.  Tell me that the mainstream media represents "the truth".

                        Suckers deserve what they get.  

                    •  Read the book before shouting "tin foil" (3.50)
                      Dr. Griffin is a well respected theologian who edited a wonderful series on post-modern theology that I used for my dissertation research many years ago.  He is a tenured (possibly emeritus) professor, with nothing to gain from writing 9/11 The New Pearl Harbour, and much to lose.  

                      I would not have given the book much credence myself, if I had not known who this man is beforehand.  

                      The official version of the events of 9/11 do not add up.  If you go back and actually comb through the timeline, the statements, the narratives, you will find many strange things.  

                      Did you know that military intelligence personnel recently swore (under oath, I believe) that Mohammed Atta and several other hijackers and known terrorists were known to be in the U.S. illegally long, long before 9/11 and not arrested?  

                      Did you know that Colleen Rowley was dissuaded from her superiors at the FBI from investigating one of the hijackers?  

                      Did you know that someone made millions of dollars on put options for the airlines involved in 9/11?  

                      Did you know that the bin Laden family as very, very close financial ties to the Bush family?  

                      There is so much surrounding 9/11 that stinks, it is hard to know what to focus on.  See http://www.911truth.org/index.php for more.

                      May all beings be free from fear.

                      by shakti on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:29:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If D.R. Griffin wears tin foil (none)
                        I gladly wear tin foil too. His book "Errors And Omissions" is extremely well documented research book you will ever need to read on 911.

                        Read if for freakin sake. You have no idea how corrupt and coplict Bu$hCo. is. These people would sell their Mother to Osama for a euro.

                        •  Really? (none)
                          If we give George the money, does that mean Barbara's on the plane?

                          Wait a minute, I'm sure I've got a euro here somewhere.

                          We must have stem-cell research. How else will Congress and the media grow spines?

                          by bablhous on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 09:47:43 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  If you're so sure it was diesel (none)
                  (or even jet-A in the Tall towers), please explain how a diesel/Jet-A fire temprature can reach the level necessary to get steel to the plastic region. Not possible, IMHO.

                  The whole point of the demolition possibility is that IF that happened, TEHN they were pre-set and that means someone(s) knew beforehand - someone in NYC/Wshington

              •  Actually You're Wrong (3.33)
                The official story doesn't answer many questions. Short buildings (WTC7) implode starting at the bottom, with coordinated explosions in the middle of the structure.  

                Very tall buildings are collapsed using a series of explosions throughout the vertical span.  That way the building doesn't just topple over and take out anything in, say a quarter mile (WTC 1&2)

                None of the building collapse stories in the official recount of collapse consider that the fire would have to be at a temperature rivalling a bomb, nor do the official stories take into account the integrity of the center structure around the elevators.  Finally, much of the metal recovered did have unusually high sulfur content, as would be seen with high tech explosives.

                •  WTC7 fell from the top (none)
                  One of the penthouses fell into the building some time (5 sec, 30 sec, I forget) before the building came down.  37 stories of penthouse support falling down took the rest of the building with it - no surprise.  It's 37, not 47, because the penthouse was supported by a weird cantilevering around the 10th floor.  Presumably a combination of pieces of the Twin Towers coming through the building and the diesel tank (which happened to be there) weakened that cantilever enough that it failed.

                  The "conspiracy support" videos conveniently omit the disappearing penthouse.  

            •  "Why bother with the planes at all" ? (none)
              more spectacular.

              "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values." - Bill

              by skyterrain on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:06:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  let me play devil's advocate for a sec. (none)
                Because how would it look if terrorists managed to carry 100's (if not 1000's) of pounds worth of explosives into the towers?  On top of that, it would have taken quite a lot of time  to plant them in the appropriate spots?  And I could be wrong, but I thought I had heard somewhere that the owners were having maintenance workers reinforce the steel beams just weeks before the attack.  Is that  right?
            •  Unproductive comments (4.00)
              but any demolition expert would have said THAT was a waste of time, you need to start the implosion from the top.
              And I suppose the pentagon damage can be explained by what ?

              All the indignant people on here who have obviously not bothered to read Griffin's books, or even read the transcript of his CSpan3 presentation early in the summer, are wasting their and everyone else's time asking questions that Griffin addressed at great length and in careful detail.

              I am rating Spreadshirt's comment unproductive as just an example; I don't want to go give ones to all the other deserving folks down below. All the questions asked by that poster here are a waste of time. Go read the books, or don't bother commenting, please. "I don't want to waste my time on bullshit" will not suffice as a defense.

              links to the CSpan lecture (Sorry -- with my slow dialup I can't test whether these files work properly)

              Links below are to amazon.com entries, not as a purchase recommendation, but for information. For The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, see the excellent review from Sept 13, 2004 by Ned Middleton, who says:

              It is important to note that this author is not alone in making such accusations, so this is not a maverick publication. Instead it raises the most worrying and disturbing questions about a series of events which shook the world and, in doing so, made a permanent change to that world - forever!

              For The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions go here.

              And if that's too much trouble, at least check out the Wikipedia entry on Griffin and follow the links there.

              Then we can talk.

          •  So (3.62)
            Are you suggesting that

            (A) WTC7 was conveniently wired for demolition before the planes hit the towers, or

            (B) Crews were dispatched into a burning building inside of a whole neighborhood of burning and collapsing buildings to set up a controlled demolition, and were willing and able to do so?

            I'm not sure which suggestion I find more ludicrous.

            -- E pur si muove.

            by asdfasdf on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:04:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In building 7 was headquartered (none)
              the offices of the FBI, the secret service, the CIA, and Rudy Giuliani's bunker.
              •  I see (4.00)
                Well now, that certainly clears up why they would want to blow it up.

                -- E pur si muove.

                by asdfasdf on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:19:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well, that does it for the demolition theory (4.00)
                I assume that you're implying "they" dropped the building to cover up something there?  I hate to tell you this, but demolition of a building is a bad way to do this.

                Sensitive stuff is generally stored in very secure containers (e.g. safes).  There's no reason to presume that a building demolition would destroy such material, and every reason to presume that building demolition would expose such information to outside eyes (e.g. whoever arrived on the scene, or nearby where the material ended up).

                If they had wanted to destroy sensitive info, there are defined procedures for doing so that are much more controlled and certain.  No need to collapse the building, and risk a security breach.

                •  unless (none)
                  you wanted to be sure nothing would be examined which is exactly what happened.  Those asked to explain how 7 collapsed were not permitted to examine any of the material, or even the scene.  They viewed the "crime scene" via videotape.

                  What better way to prevent any investigation, sweep it up in the rest of the package.

                  •  It doesn't work that way (4.00)
                    There were rescuers and uncleared people on the ground at the scene, which wasn't secure--it was chaos.  One of the first rules of sensitive information is that you take every measure to prevent exposure of that information.

                    Dropping a government building that contains classified information is a security breach, not a security measure.  Why the heck do that, when you could simply shred and burn the information (standard procedure)?

                    •  Only so much you can shred or burn (1.50)
                      how do you shred or burn evidence that isn't paper? And the Command Center was every bit secure, it just had an enormous infusion of cash for just that purpose.
                      •  Depends upon the material (none)
                        There are defined methods for "sanitizing" just about any media.  Whether it's "shred and burn" (in the case of printed documents) or "degauss/sandblast/pulverize" (for electronic media), there's literally no sensitive information that can't be destroyed securely, and in fact IS destroyed securely every day.
                        •  not limited to media (none)
                          Buildings are destroyed to conceal evidence of a lot of things which are not media in any way, shape of form.  The evidence was destroyed in the sense that there was no on site investigation of the fire or the cause of the collapse.  Does this prove anything  nefarious? Hell no. The only thing it proves is that every procedure and law for investigating a fire and a crime scene was broken. Does that prove anything nefarious?  Hell no.

                          A case cannot be made for or against the cause of the collapse based on the fact that there are easier ways to destroy evidence.  There are easier ways to kill 3,000 people than hijacking and crashing 4 jetliners too.

              •  The headquarters of the FBI is in (none)
                Washington, DC, so is the headquarters of the Secret Service. The CIA is headquartered in Langley, Va. If they had offices in building 7, they were the NY branch offices, not the headquarters. I have no idea where Guiliani's bunker might be, or if he even has one. But wouldn't it be more logical to have it City Hall rather than the World Trade Center??

                What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

                by Demfem on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:50:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  it's true (none)
                  Guiliani really did put his super-expensive emergency operations center in the WTC, and it was destroyed on 9/11.  I don't know why he thought to put it there, after the first attack in 1993.
                  •  and yes, branch offices DUH! (none)
                  •  Building 7 Not on Main WTC Site (none)
                    And yet the media won't criticize Guiliani's judgment at all. CNN is still pushing the Rovian spin that FEMA's failures are all because Nagin isn't as strong a leader as Guiliani.

                    One possible justification for putting the center inside the WTC is that Building 7 actually wasn't on the same city block as the rest of the WTC. Guiliani may have assumed that the distance would protect it in the event of an attack on the twin towers.

                    The conspiracy theories say that he was right: WTC7 was so far away that it should have been safe, so it must have been demolished. The official story is that it fell down in part because of the command center, which included several floors of fuel.

            •  If they wanted to demolish it.... (none)
              ...they certainly had the means to plant charges in advance.

              Marvin Bush (the pres' brother) was on the board of director's for Securacom, the security agency responsible for the WTC complex.

              They also worked for United and Dulles Int'l Airport.

              Whether any charges were on the scene, who am I to say?

          •  Building 7 failed because of a long diesel burn (4.00)
            Steel loses approximately half of its strength and stiffness at 1,100 degrees F, and it loses approximately 80 percent at 1,200 degrees F. Regardless of how well the steel is insulated, eventually heat will cross the insulation and raise the temperature of the steel.

            The fire in Building 7 burned for seven hours, and it therefore melted a major support beam, leading to collapse of the building.

            I have already written another entry here to show that the statement "No steel-frame building has EVER collapsed due to fire.  Ever.  Except on 9/11 when three of them did." is totally false.

            Relevant article:
            http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00613FC35550C718CDDAA0894DA404482

            "As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants.

            "Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks....

            "Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building's core. Then a second larger rooftop room sinks. The building then quickly collapses.

            "Both rooms were above sections of the building held up by the trusses. Other video evidence shows fire concentrated in the floors containing the trusses and the fuel tanks."

            •  My question (none)
              How does a fire 100 stories away so diminish the strength of the beams on the first few floors as to cause them to collapse?  When the fire only burned about 15 minutes?  And if part of the story is the planes' impact "dislodging" the insulation, again, this impact occurred all the way down to the first few stories?
              •  wrong building (none)
                Building 7 was only 47 stories high. And the fire and the transfer trusses were in the same spot.

                The building was constructed on top of a pre-existing set of massive transformers, and the transfer trusses carried the building load over those transformers. When the transfer truss sagged because of the heat from the severn-hour-long fire, the building collapsed.

            •  Once again... (none)
              It wasn't melted steel. It was deformed steel. Steel in its plastic state. It buckled.

              And engineers and architects go through an incredible amount of trouble to design buildings out of steel that won't collapse or partially fail because of small fires.

              --

              You see, what confuses the world is the incongruity between the swift flight of the mind and matter's vast clumsy slowness...

              by Hauer Santos on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:25:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Read the FEMA Report! (none)
              They say the diesal fuel was insufficient.  They are unable to come up with a viable theory for the building's collapse.
          •  That's what I thought that same day (none)
            On Sept. 11th, 2001, when I saw those towers come down, that was my first thought.  It was a controlled demolition.  At the time, I wasn't sure if it was the "terrorists" who planted the charges or someone else; but the collapse wasn't natural.
          •  IIRC... (none)
            It was taken down because it was on the verge of collapse and endangering recovery efforts. That's what I recall when watching the coverage of 9/11 anyway.

            I don't like Bizarro World... I want to go home to America.

            by willers on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 08:46:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  no... the demolition thing (4.00)
          One of the towers was leaning over before it collapsed. Kinda difficult to engineer such a feat.

          I'm one of those who won't listen to anything Griffin says.

          "What they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person."

          by subtropolis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:39:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it was leaning (none)
            it wouldn't have fallen straight down.

            Anyway, our focus should be on building 7, a 49-story steel framed building that wasn't hit by planes and collapsed later that day and which everybody now conveniently ignores:

            http://reopen911.org/video/30secondAdForBuilding7.mov

            •  A building that big has to fall straight down (4.00)
              Once it starts coming down the resistance of the supports becomes irrelevant and the velocity imparted by gravity completely swamps any initial sideways motion.  If you look carefully at South Tower coming down you see it - it started to fall sideways but then basically goes straight down.
              •  asdf (none)
                Think.  Then why does it take so much effort and work for a demolition team to get a building to implode?  Just fly an airplane into it and it accomplishes the exact same thing?  I think not.  How do the buildings collapse perfectly with two imperfect airplane hits?  I always wondered that.
                •  Ummm (4.00)
                  maybe because they have to do it safely and follow government safety codes and regulations so that no one gets hurt or surrounding property damaged?

                  "Think."  That's funny apparently you didn't...

                  (Cross-posted in my pants)

                  by Calishfornia on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:04:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Demolitions need to be perfect (4.00)
                  The WTC is a case in point.  Both fell essentially straight down - check the vids - but enough stuff was ejected or levered out to destroy several nearby buildings.  Even one girder flying across the street from 30 stories up can be a catastrophe.
                •  Just fly an airplane into it (4.00)
                  and pray who do we contract to fly the airplane?

                  Other than the ultimate suicidal jihadists?

                  I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions without knowing the physics of the events.

              •  *sigh* again (none)
                I know. My point is that the structural failure that led to it (the south tower) collapsing entirely was obvious through a pronounced leaning at the impact area. Look at the image i posted above. I am not suggesting that it leant over at street level! Sheesh.

                When the North Tower buckled it went fairly straight, as can be seen by watching the tower on it's roof.

                "What they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person."

                by subtropolis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 11:19:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  WHY? (would it not fall straight down?) (4.00)
              The 500000 ton building would need to have FORCE exerted on it to counter the laws of physics which say it should take the shortest path to the ground when it falls.

              Where was the force big enough to move 1/2 a million tons of steel, glass, etc. even a bit?

              --

              You see, what confuses the world is the incongruity between the swift flight of the mind and matter's vast clumsy slowness...

              by Hauer Santos on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:29:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Define straight down (4.00)
              Yeah, the Towers fell "straight down," but it was NOT in any way anything resembling a controlled demolition.

              Shit ended up blocks and blocks away from the site.

              Yeah, the general direction of the debris and structure was straight down, but not all of it.

              And like the person who commented, what direction do you think it's going to fall? It would take a truly tremendous if not outright impossible force to move it in any other direction.

              So, yeah, it was leaning -- didn't you see it leaning on TV? I know I did -- AND it fell basically straight down.

              I don't think the 9/11 Commission got it all right, and I'm sure there was and is tons of ass-covering in it from all federal agencies involved, including ties between Bush and the Saudis, etc. But the main assertions of the tin-foil hat crowd are bizarre and outrageous.

            •  *sigh* (none)

              Sorry, i can't find the one from immediatle before this. It's not like a have scrapbook. If i do ever come across it, i will save it because it's really tiring seeing this demolition crap all the time.

              "What they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person."

              by subtropolis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 11:12:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  There is proof ... (1.60)
          There is proof that demolition was used to bring the WTC buildings down -- and hence, an inside job (rather than simply terrorists with "box-cutters").

          There is direct testimony from eye witnesses, there is also photographic evidence showing systematic bursts, there is also recorded seismograph evidence of explosions, and there is even an admission from Larry Silverstein that WTC 7 was "pulled", i.e. taken down by demolition.

          Check out:
          http://reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_part_1.wmv

          Also use your common sense:

          1. Do steel frame buildings just collapse neatly down into their own footprint, and,  at free-fall speed due to a fire?  heat?    When in all of world history has that ever happened before?  

          2. The 2nd tower fell first even though it had only been on fire for a little over 1 hour. What are you going to believe that the marvelous WTC which were designed to handle tremendous fire, wind, and impact forces simply just fell down like a house of cards from fire?

          It is 'kooky' to think that these steel frame buildings would just collapse like that after an hour of a fire, moreover collapse at free fall speed and with concrete and steel crushed into finely crushed clouds of dust -- which in of itself is proof that controlled demolition was involved.
          •  Yes, it is kooky (2.75)
            But that does not make a case. Let me be clear -- I personally believe that demolition is the best explanation for why the buildings came down. But I cannot prove it. I cannot even get close. And I think it thus weakens the case.

            We need to approach these things like lawyers, or those yelling 'tinfoil' will have a solid point. A good lawyer would not start with WTC demolition or the Pentagon 'missile'. In fact, a good lawyer would toss these out Day One and focus on the perps and their actions.

            Starting points -- It is simply not credible this side of Alice in Wonderland that:

            • the entire government would ignore warnings coming from many agencies and seversl foreign governments, some very detailed, and not even raise airport security (or,hey, put Atta and the rest of the mostly well-known crew in jail)
            • that several major air defense drills would just happen to be occuring the week of a major terrorist attack
            • that NORAD/FAA would suddenly deviate from the intercept policy they had followed scores of times in the months previous to 9/11
            • that Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the President would not get especially excited about the attack even after the second tower was hit
            • that a jet -- after a terrorist attack is clearly underway -- could fly for 40+ minutes toward the freaking Pentagon and not be intercepted and shot down (and that terrorists would actually base a long planned attack on this space-out)

            Not credible. Not even close, really.
          •  Well, actually, (4.00)
            about this... "Do steel frame buildings just collapse neatly down into their own footprint, and,  at free-fall speed due to a fire? heat?" Jet fuel burns at a much higher temperature than the steel frames in the buildings were designed for..the buildings were designed to withstand the structure itself catching fire, not the heat from a jet fuel fire. The steel became friable at that heat level, and consequently crumbled.

            "The 2nd tower fell first even though it had only been on fire for a little over 1 hour. What are you going to believe that the marvelous WTC which were designed to handle tremendous fire, wind, and impact forces simply just fell down like a house of cards from fire?" The second building had the plane go in at a steep sideways angle, taking out several floors and doing major structural damage, and again, the jet fuel fire.

            If you want to believe that Bush, or the city of NY, took out the towers as a political ploy, with the cooperation of Islamic Jihadists, be my guest. This is America, and every one has the right to be wrong..even you.

            What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

            by Demfem on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:04:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have read experts who said that jet fuel is not (none)
              melt the steel core. They did say however that jet fuel combined with office flammables (paper, furniture, etc.) would be enough to do it.

              Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

              by upstate NY on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:08:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There are some odd... (none)
              ...photos of people standing in the tower openings left by the planes, looking out over the city.  I didn't see any fire in those photos.  Also, I think you should check your facts on the temperature of burning jet fuel.  Isn't it mostly kerosene?  That burns cooler than a lot of other fuels.

              OK.  Here we go:

              http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp121-c3.pdf
              (page 97)

              "Both JP-5 and JP-8 are distillate fuels consisting of distilled process streams refined from crude petroleum.  Characteristics of JP-8 fuel (such as density and distillation temperatures) are very similar to those of JP-5 (DOD 1992). There is no standard formula for jet fuels. Their exact composition depends on the crude oil from which they were refined. Variability in fuel composition occurs because of differences in the original crude oil (Custance et al. 1992; IARC 1989) and in the individual additives. As a result of this variability, little information exists on the exact chemical and physical properties of jet fuels (Custance et al. 1992).  However, the differences in these fuels are minor. The primary ingredient of both JP-5 and JP-8 is kerosene, and the composition of these fuels is basically the same as kerosene, with the exceptions that they are made under more stringent conditions and contain various additives not found in kerosene (DOD 1992; IARC 1989)."

              JP-8 is, I believe, the fuel most commonly used in commercial airliners.  It's flash point is 110 degrees.

              I tend to believe this explanation:

              "Interestingly, jet fuel -- somewhat similar to common kerosene and not much different than charcoal lighter fluid -- burns at roughly 875 degrees. Whether a little or a lot of fuel is burned, it still burns at roughly the same temperature. Now: Think about all the kerosene burning in all those kerosene heaters (and lanterns), constructed primarily of thin, low-grade, steel sheet metal. Think about all those kerosene heaters burning merrily away, with temperatures perhaps approaching 875 degrees at the hottest. Think about how parts of all those kerosene heaters would then turn into bubbling pools of melted steel before the horrified eyes of countless poor souls who had no idea the fuel used in their heaters would actually "MELT" the heaters themselves.

              Of course, this does NOT happen -- which gives us a pretty good idea that what had been sold far and wide by the U.S. government and innumerable media outlets as the "cause" of the trade center towers' collapse is in fact absolute fiction and fantasy, without the slightest shred of scientific fact or collaborative evidence and testimony to support such monstrous and utter nonsense. Hardened steel such as that used in the WTC beams and girders needs temperatures of approximately TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED (2,800) degrees to actually melt, and temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees to turn bright red and soften."

              I don't understand why more people aren't curious enough to look into some of this stuff.  Even just for a mental exercise.  It must be fear mostly that causes people to ridicule other, more curious people.

              •  It wasn't melted steel. (none)
                It was distorted, weakened steel. Steel has an elasticity but this may become plasticity in a fire of the temperature in the WTC. Plastic means that the steel deformed and caused unequal loading of component members and an uneven failure of components exposed to differentials of heating across the impacted floors. These unevenly loaded members failed ("buckled") and caused a pancaking effect which overloaded the floors below.

                See this excellent, short article for a competent explanation.

                http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

                --

                You see, what confuses the world is the incongruity between the swift flight of the mind and matter's vast clumsy slowness...

                by Hauer Santos on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:19:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The steel SAGGED, it didn't MELT (none)
                Steel melts at a very high temperature, approximately 2,700-2,800 degrees F, as you stated. However, it loses strength and sags at much lower temperatures. For example, it loses half its strength and stiffness if heated to 1,100 degrees F. If the steel beams sag, the floors quickly begin to fail as beams pull loose.
              •  Pure Nonsense (none)
                "Interestingly, jet fuel -- somewhat similar to common kerosene and not much different than charcoal lighter fluid -- burns at roughly 875 degrees"

                ......875???..under what conditions?...sounds like pure BS to me

                 iron and steel are often melted with oil fired burners......and YES even with waste vegetable oil too...a big jet fuel fire will generate intense heat

                your charcoal fire at a cookout doesn't seem too hot does it? but blast some air into it and you get INTENSE heat...that's how we used to smelt iron. I've melted small amounts of steel with charcoal & a hairdryer in my backyard foundry

                "...temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees to turn bright red and soften"

                nonsense...."red hot" is much lower than 2,000 degrees:

                Color Approximate Temperature in °F  
                Faint Red 930
                Blood Red 1075
                Dark Cherry 1175
                Medium Cherry 1275
                Cherry 1375
                Bright Cherry 1450

            •  When you have eliminated the impossible, (none)
              then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  (Sherlock Holmes)
        •  FEMA Report (none)
          Read the official Fema report on WTC 7, the engineers conclude they don't know why the building fell!
        •  Any structural engineers here? (none)
          This is a pretty extraordinary claim -- one that skyscraper experienced, registered, structural engineers could probably evaluate. But as for others who are not trained in structural engineering, I think you are over your head on this one.

          "On Olympos, Scholic Hockenberry, there are no permanent friends or trustworthy allies or loyal mates... only permanent interests." -- Dan Simmons

          by Eloi Scientist on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:49:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  what he does best (none)
        is put out all of the various theories and the support or conflicting evidence on each theory. He leaves it to the reader to make their own conclusions based on each theory, including the official one.
    •  His best points (4.00)
      are that the 9/11 Commission was a miserable failure (or intentional whitewash) that avoided many topics that a serious investigation would look into, and fudged data whenever it was convenient. For example, their 9/11 timeline and NORAD's do not at all match. All evidence suggests they convened from the starting position of the 'incompetence theory', and avoided anything that didn't fit, while ocassionally appeared to ask a tough question or two (when a couple hundred tough questions and a polygraph would've been handy).
      •  9/11 Report has been declared a failure by (4.00)
        in-depth articles in

        Harper's Magazine,

        Vanity Fair,

        The New York Review of Books.

        They all prove that it was a WHITEWASH.

        This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

        by Agathena on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:03:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Check out some info (none)
      like the documentaries 'Loose Change','In Plane Site' and "Painful Deceptions", they all use the news footage we saw a million times and the eyewitness reports at the scene that were never shown again and there is a lot of things that aren't right. One is the attack on the pentagon. A Boeing 757 is 80 tons, 155 feet long, 124 feet wide and 43 feet high with 2 6 ton 9X12 Pratt and Whitney engines (my dad works making these behemoths) and no wreckage or human remains were found except for a few light pieces and a small engine (3 feet diameter) I am telling you no 757 hit the pentagon. There was only a 16 X 9 foot hole at the pentagon and no wings tail or engines? Give me a break.
       There are serious common sense problems at all 3 sites. I urge yo to get these documentaries and see for yourself.

      "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

      by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:38:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have got to be kidding. (none)
        16'X9'?

        Check out these photos and diagrams or do a google photo search for "pentagon 9/11" or something similar.

        http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/770706.php

        --

        You see, what confuses the world is the incongruity between the swift flight of the mind and matter's vast clumsy slowness...

        by Hauer Santos on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:45:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  These claims (none)
        have all been soundly debunked in various places on the Internet.

        For instance the claim that there was no damage to the Pentagon from the wings of the plane is false. The wings are light aluminum structures, they didn't have the mass to pass through the reinforced walls of the pentagon, but there are plenty of pictures showing the damage done by them to the exterior of the building where they impacted. The fuselage of the aircraft, on the other hand, is where the preponderance of the mass of the plane is. The fuselage had the mass necessary to punch through the external walls of the building.

      •  This EYEWITNESS Says You Are Full of It ... (none)
        I clearly saw the cabin windows on the side of the plane and recognized Boeing's distinctive cigar-shaped airframe and the American Airlines red and blue striping on the silver body as it streaked past me like a bat out of hell to strike the Pentagon.

        And the roiling fireball from the impact looked like the black and orange colors in the DailyKos logo (that logo actually makes me feel a part of a campaign to get rid of the coward who hid out on that day and then has tried to use the tragedy for his party's own political purposes).

        Now ... there was indeed a 16'h x 9'w hole at the Pentagon--but it was at the 2nd story level in the wall of A&E Drive, a roadway in the interior of the building which runs MIDWAY between the outer C, D, and E rings and the inner A and B rings. Luckily, my office had moved out of the building to Pentagon renovation space in Rosslyn, else our first floor location spanning the C & D rings--roughly behind the heliport tower--would have resulted in the death of many of my coworkers. I heard that the budget people who were located next door to our old office space suffered over 50% deaths.

        Now as to what happened to the airplane wings ... well, I suggest that you take off your tinfoil hat and rent a copy of "The Mark of Zorro" (the 1940 version with Tyrone Power and Basil Rathbone) for an explanation. Hint: it has something to do with a candle. Here's a picture of the devastation at the Pentagon and it doesn't appear to show any "wing damage". OR DOES IT? Look carefully at the Pentagon wall face, with its four stories of windows, to the left of the bright yellow crane. That wall face should extend without change to its right, except for the small firstfloor doorway at its midpoint. Do you notice that, starting at the second window to the RIGHT of that doorway, the first floor windows seem to be set in slightly from the windows above them? That's where the left wing went in ... at the top of the first floor windows (and the heavy fire/smoke damage there was fed by the fuel in that wing).

        Regarding the plane's disintegration--the plane went in level, but at an angle to that side of the building, causing it to impact many more building support columns than if it had come in straight on. So why didn't the impact rip out the building support columns? Because the Pentagon was built during World War II, when steel for the war effort was too precious to be used extensively in office buildings, even if those buildings belonged to the War Department. So, instead of steel columns, the Pentagon was built with much-wider-around rebar-enforced concrete columns. That type of column won't rip away when hit by a powerful force--instead, the concrete will absorb the energy and the rebar will act like a shredder.

        The thing that is so sad to me about the commemorations and outpouring of support over the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon is that it's treated as an attack only on military men and women. But please be aware that the Pentagon is roughly 50-50 military and loyal DOD civilians (plus a smaller number of contractors), and the 9/11 casualties reflected that makeup.

        After writing this, I found a good online description of the 9/11 crash into the Pentagon which looks like it was based on the report that Lee Ivey, head of the Pentagon renovation office, presented to us after the engineers and crime scene experts had studied the damage. And I agree with that site's lead-in: these conspiracy theories distract from the ultimate goal of holding the Bush WH accountable for failing to protect the nation.

        "If they would rather die," said Scoorge/FEMA/Rethugs, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

        by Robert de Loxley on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 12:03:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If only. . . (4.00)
    . . .this program were on ABC-TV as well as radio!  Well, at least this is a start.  Maybe someday people will realize that so-called blue ribbon, bipartisan commissions are the mechanisms governments use to gloss over the untidy and inconvenient facts surrounding the sins of government.
  •  Sorry no links.. (4.00)
    I got this info in an urgent E-mail from 9/11 CitizensWatch  

    9/11 CitizensWatch is a new citizen-led oversight process established to monitor and constructively engage the Government-sanctioned National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.

     His talk and lecture can be found here.

    "Facism will come to Americain the guise of national security"- Jim Garrison in 1967, the only man to bringa suspect to court for the Kennedy assassination

    •  Maybe This Program Will Start a Spark (none)
      If anyone has a way to tape this & put it up later for us to listen to, that would be great.

      I just checked ABC Radio's web-site & it is bare-bones.

      The town I used to live in had a ABC radio affiliate, but I haven't heard any where I live now.

      In matters of conscience, the Law of Majority has no place. -- Mahatma Gandhi

      by Ranting Roland on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:07:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  reopen911.org (4.00)
    good site

    "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

    by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 02:43:24 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the heads-up n/t (none)
  •  Watch the footage of the plane that hit Pentagon (2.80)
    No possible way it was a jumbo jet, just watch. There is NO debris, at all, and he photosof the fireman on the lawn are pretty damning, not a scratch on the lawn no bodies, no plane parts, no seats, the thousands of gallons of fuel apparently just disappeared. There is one photo f the hole in the building, with a stool sitting there, right next to the edge, with an open book sitting on it, and not one of the pages is even singed. Just watch, its pretty disturbing.      reopen911.org They have Griffin on the videos as well.

    "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

    by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 02:49:42 PM PDT

    •  Not worth discussing (4.00)
      What footage? The four frames released by the government? I do not claim to know what happened at the Pentagon, and like everything else that day, there's a lot of funny smell to it. But look up 'disinfo' and 'psyops', and focus on the important stuff:

      • How does the whole damn government ignore warnings and red flags everywhere and do nothing to amp up airline and other security?
      • Where was NORAD when they have std procedures for quickly intercepting off-course jets?
      • Why did most of our government act like there was no major cause for alarm (Myers, Rummy, etc. dawdling in meetings, Bush reading Goat book)

      etc.  

      There are more core arguments to be made, and these should be the focus, not WTC demolition (if it happened, they destroyed the evidence!), and the Pentagon (likewise, mostly)

    •  So the entire Pentagon is in collusion? (4.00)
      Hard to buy. Out of thousands of employees not a single one corroborates these claims?
      •  Who are you talking to? (4.00)
        If you're referring to what I said (hard to tell), the 'entire Pentagon' doesn't have to be in on anything. These types of operations only take a small group of toplevel people. Chain of command is very handy in these cases. The Big Boss says shut up, and you shut up. And the big mystery is not the Pentagon, but NORAD.
        •  to blakbelt (4.00)
          Hard to believe that if the Pentagon site was so obviously devoid of debris that some Pentagon employee or some fireman has not gone public with the revelations in 4 years.
        •  And by mere coincidence.... (none)
          ...the 757 did a tough 270 degree turn and fly feet above the ground at 530 MPH just above cars and people who would have been blown away by the jets, and hit the only section under renovation that was being reenforced and there were only a few construction workers and not the hundreds and hundreds in other sections.hmmm plus there is no video? There are literally dozens of video cameras covering that entire area. They were quickly confiscated and they only released 5 frames of a blurry video that doesnt show any plane. Why don't they just release all the videos and end the secrecy and questions?
           

          "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

          by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:46:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You have no clue how aircraft operate.... (4.00)
            ...and as an Aerospace Engineer, I kind of have a clue. First, airplanes aren't very strong. They're only as strong as they need to be to handle flight. Perhaps you've never seen photos of aviation accidents, but the ground always wins if they hit with any amount of energy and many times the aircraft are completely destroyed in the ensuing fires.

            Also, the plane wasn't so low it would "blow away" people and cars on the ground. It was over 100ft off of the ground and descended at the last moment and actually struckt he ground first then the building. Also, the jet efflux wouldn't be that bad since the plane was moving. You're thinking of the jet efflux when the jet add's power when it starts it's take off and the engines probably weren't anywhere near that thrust level not to mention the aircraft was moving (Go read up on Newton's second law to catch my drift).

            Also, the Pentagon itself is an incredibly strong building. I forgot how thick the walls of the pentagon are, but they aren't anything like your typical brick home. Hell, look at how strong the Twin Towers were when they were struck by the larger 767s. The Pentagon is a hell of alot toughter than the Twin Towers were.

            Also, I know people who work at the Pentagon and one of them saw the plane hit in his rearview mirror when he was leaving. So, for your premise to be true, all the people who were around the Pentagon were either hallucianting or the subjects of some huge secret mind control project.

            BTW, for anyone interested, here's a good link regarding what happened when the 767's struck the WTC by Architects. Engineering Forensics Of Collapse

            Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

            by Alumbrados on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:37:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ty Alumbrados (none)
              remember the basic rule of aircraft design: "simplify and add lightness"

              airplanes are light structures

              P.S. I know a guy who saw the plane before it hit

              LOTS of people saw it happen...there's no way some gov't conspiracy could control all the people in the area who could see what happened

    •  okay, I'll bite (4.00)
      If that wasn't American Airlines Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon, where did that plane go?
      •  seriously (4.00)
        Ted Olson lost his wife on that plane.
      •  area 51? n/t (4.00)

        Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

        by AnnArborBlue on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:44:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I saw that movie! (none)
          They were taken to the future!

          There was some hot chick who transported them out of the plane at the last minute!

          9-11 was propagated by the future generations of the corrupt Bush clan!

          They need more people to fight the Iraq WOT in 2259!

          They engineered the hurricane so that they could steal all the poor black people to fight thier future war! That's why the death count is so low!

          This is fun! :-)

          The GOP and the Elephant are both Introduced Species

          by roboton on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:24:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No answer for that one (none)
        Even amongst those who promote these theories there is no easy answer for that.

        Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.

        by JamesC on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:17:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In one film I saw... (1.00)
        called Loose Change they showed an internet news story from a local news stations website that reported a plane landed at Cleveland-Hopkins airport because of a bomb threat around the time of the crash in the field in PA., and the report says it was flight 93. This was before all was know about the plane crashing in Pennsylvania. Strangely there is little wreckage at that site as well.
         So maybe the planes were diverted because they all lost radar for a short time and then were picked up again. Flight 77 supposedly traveled 200 miles and was not seen on any radar even though the FAA and NORAD were looking for it.
         For four years this country stumbled around in a shock/fear stupor and look where we were lead.

        "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

        by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:54:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Operation Northwoods (4.00)
        Excerpts from declassified 1962 U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Memo
        Operation Northwoods
        Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba
        It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela.

              a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.  The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

              b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.  From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.  The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft.  The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

        link

        And these are plans from 40 years ago. I can only imagine how much better similiar plans would be today.

    •  I hesitate to ask, but... (4.00)
      ...I would sincerely like to know.

      What exactly is your rational explanation for:

      What happened to the aircraft?  Is every Boeing maintenance facility on the planet in on the conspiracy?  It's a little more difficult than you think to make a 757 disappear from the face of the earth.

      What happened to the 64 humans (passengers, cabin crew and cockpit crew) that boarded flight 77 but never came home to their families?  Were they all lined up against a wall in a hanger at Area 57 and executed in a hail of .50 machine gun fire?  Then partially incinerated, chopped up, and transported back to Dover AFB where their DNA could be analyzed?

      BTW, a 757 is not a jumbo.  A bit bigger than a 737, a lot smaller than a 767 (let alone a real jumbo like a 747).

      Thanks, -Jay-

    •  Um - it was going > 200 mph? (4.00)
      Of course nothing is going to bounce back into the lawn!  Everything ended up inside the Pentagon.
    •  investigation shows: There Was a Plane. (4.00)
      Why is it surprising?   The plane hit a very stout concrete, steel and stone building which was recently reinforced.

      Planes are made out of thin aluminum---they have to fly.

      Pieces of specific plane debris, like landing wheels, were in fact found.

      And then---what about the many many eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly in at low altitude?    Including my sister.

      if it wasn't a plane, where did THAT plane go?

      Here's from a tin-foil hat conspiracy site---and the author comes to a well-supported conclusion that it was a Boeing 757 and nothing else.

      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

      •  Ok, where are the engines?? (1.50)
        I have stood next to these behemoths. They are 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet long. There were 2 of them, they are made partly out of titanium which has a much higher melting point then jet fuel. There should have been 2 huge holes in he building where these 6 ton engines plowed through. They were never recovered and they didnt just vaporize. No engines, no 757.
         Your tin argument explaining that the plane just got shredded is wrong also. Whatever hit the pentagon went through 9 feet of steel enforced concrete walls and left a hole at the end. No way the light material went through that much concrete and if it did where is the nose? Where are the wings that would have sheared off as the fuselage entered and where is tha 43 foot high tail and stabilizers? The roof line was intact so it should have been on the lawn fo all of us to see. It wasnt there, nor was a 757. Sorry

        "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

        by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:01:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Titanium (none)
          I guess we are supposed to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) just melted away those titanium engines?  I can't buy it!

          Just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any worse...

          by reflectionsv37 on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:37:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  engines aren't ALL titanium (none)
            and btw...titanium burns...you can buy titanium from fireworks suppliers for that reason

            in fact, titanium is so reactive it will burn in NITROGEN

            not saying the titanium made the engines go POOF...just tossing in some titanium trivia

        •  Engines 9 feet in diameter? Bullshit (none)
          The engines on a 757 are nowhere near that large, not even. I've seen a 757 up close. Heck I even flew on one twice. Once to Vegas and once back to home, you could do that too if you bought a ticket. These aren't big, mysterious things they're hiding from the public. Look, man, those engines are just not that big. 12 feet long, perhaps though I don't really think so. 9 foot in diameter? No way, no how.

          Anyway, I just Googled it -- the Rolls-Royce version is a little over 6-foot in diameter, and that's the biggest power plant available on a 757.

          See, this is how conspiracy theories work.

          Some ignoramus says, "It couldn't have been a 757. Their engines are 9 feet in diameter! All they showed were smaller engines in the wreckage!"

          Well, maybe that's because a 757 doesn't have 9-foot diameter jet engines. Doh!

          You know, this shit has been so thoroughly debunked, I don't know why I am even wasting my time. I think I'll post this link elsewhere in the thread, too.

    •  the truth of things is bad enough (4.00)
      without conspiracy theories.  I don't believe this stuff.  Just like Katrina proves, this government is too incompetent to competently plan 9/11.  The cover-up, such as it is, is to hide what negligent fools they are.  that's enough for me.

      "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

      by marjo on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:11:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why bother to coordinate the destruction? (4.00)
        When you only have to coordinate lapses in responsiveness. There's fewer people and far less hassle.

        Gun control" is out of season, my friends, when your country is sliding into fascism! - proudtinfoilhat

        by HunterKiller on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:06:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And that may very well be true. (none)
          They knew it was coming, and did nothing to prevent it, knowing it would give them the capital to pursue their neo-con agenda.

          Either one SUCKS, and calls for a recall of leadership, period.

          "How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right." Black Hawk

          by Gabriele Droz on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:43:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That would be my personal interpretation... (none)
            ...perhaps they didn't know quite how high the casualty count would be; but think about it.  Even an unsuccessful crash of ONE plane into the twin towers (killing only those on board and perhaps a few where the plane hit) would have been enough for Bush to let loose on his agenda of fear.

            "The responsibility of government for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate." -Winston Churchill

            by hopesprings on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 08:57:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You don't want to believe it (2.50)
        so you say it couldn't have happened.  Go examine the evidence and you will see that the official story just doesn't hold water.  It's ludicrous.  

        My wife has the same attitude as you do.  "I don't want to believe this so it can't be true."  And she refuses to research the evidence that it IS true, which is there.  (By "it" I mean complicity on the part of the US government.)

        Putting your hands over your eyes to not see evil doesn't make evil go away.

    •  Lestatdelc pointed out (none)
      that you can see the plane

      To bad I was only able to rate the comment once.

      "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by sgilman on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:51:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no way (none)
        the pentagon is 72 feet high. a 757 is 155 feet long. Its twice as long as the pentagon is high, it would be very visable. This plane is hidden behind a little toll box. Why dont they just release the dozens of surveilance videos that were confiscated. Just show the tapes and end the speculation.

        "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

        by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:07:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  At the tail (none)
          The 757 it 44 feet tall.  In the picture, you can compare the out line of the tail to the height of the building and it seems to fit.  As for the toll both, how close it is to the camera makes all the difference.  I can hide even the largest object behind my finger if it's close enough to my eye.

          The one thing I do agree with, they should release the surveillance and put and end to this once and for all.

          "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by sgilman on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:23:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  i have to disagree (none)
      Ask almost anyone who lives in the DC Area, and who was living here on 9/11, and they themselves or someone they know most likely saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

      And while some people may claim to have seen it, I do know someone who was in traffic by the Pentagon that morning and saw the airplane fly over and then impact.

      So how do you explain all of these witnesses?

  •  Fuck that plane... (none)
    thats fucking CIA PsyOps and Convolutes the message.
  •  OK, fuck the plane (4.00)
    Lets focus on the controled demolition of building 7. It had small fires burning most of the day, when the sprinkler systems should have put them out. Then about 5:30 that afternoon, the owner (I think) is on tape giving the go ahead to "pull" the building, a term used by demolitionists. Why weren't the fires put out? They wanted to coverup all evidence apparently, the CIA ofices were in building 7. A 40 some story steel frame building does not just collapse from a small fire, in fact there have been similiar buildings that have burned for an entire day and the structure was still intact. An obvious coverup. reopen911.org

    "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

    by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:09:08 PM PDT

    •  Marvin Bush, I think (4.00)
      did you know that bush's brother worked for the company that insured the buildings?

      The problem is not the BEAST..it's the BASTARD with the whip trying to starve it!

      by NeuroticBlonde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:31:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the owner (I think) (none)
      "In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

      I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
      http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/01-20-04/discussion.cgi.75.html

      ...learn something new every day...

      by nhwriter on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:13:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  FEMA Report (none)
      As I've said upstream, the official FEMA report (which I read), does not come to a conclusion as to the cause of the building.  They don't know why this building fell.  I find such a conclusion pretty damn interesting.  The question is: who benefits?  Typically, the only reason I could think of would be the building's owner and his coverage under the insurance policy.  Was the owner better off with a collapsed building?  Who knows?  Is there a lawsuit going on regarding insurance coverage and the building?  Answers could be there in the discovery material.  It it's not an insurance matter, given the tenants in the building; one wonders....
    •  And it takes weeks... (none)
      ...to demolish them like that. They have to do studies to detonate in the right places and set up. No way the fire department did that in a few hours with fires burning.

      "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

      by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:09:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Charges planted far in advance (none)
        The theory I heard was that demolition charges were put in place far in advance, even perhaps when the buildings were built.  

        Maybe as a failsafe in case something happpened in one of the buildings, they couldn't afford any of them collapsing in an uncontrolled way.

        I'm not saying whether this is true or not, just reporting what I heard.

  •  what's the story? (none)
    If someone has some time, I (and I'm sure others) would appreciate a summary of the issues.  I'm not at all familiar with this, and don't think very many people are either.  Sounds pretty (and by "pretty," I mean VERY) tin foil hat to me....
    •  it sounds "tinfoily" because (3.50)
      you believe the official story and haven't looked into it.

      Believe me, once you look into it, you'll realize the "official story" is full of holes.

      It's an ugly ugly thing to look into.

      Bottom line:  9/11 was an inside job.  

      The evidence is there.   Scott Petersen was sent to death row on less evidence.

      •  I've read both of Griffin's books (none)
        and also heard him a couple of months ago on CNN. A great deal of the "official" story is ludicrous unless you believe that everyone involved in 9/11 was braindead that day. That, of course, is a possibility, i.e., Katrina. Still, I have difficulty believing that 9/11 was planned by our govt., although it sure was a great opportunity for BushCo., and Griffin's books are compelling.
      •  yes, yes (3.75)
        Believe me, once you look into it, you'll realize the "official story" is full of holes.

        It's an ugly ugly thing to look into.

        Bottom line:  9/11 was an inside job.  

        You know, the most annoying thing about this conspiracy theory isn't the theory. It's the smug superiority of its proponents. The statements that OF COURSE it was an inside job, and anyone who disagrees just hasn't looked into it, or is naive, or worse, complicit.

        It's a hell of a deflection technique.

        Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

        by AnnArborBlue on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the link (none)
        Still very tinfoily.

        Seems to me, though, that a lot of what happened on 9/11 comes from flat out incompetence, not knowledge of what was going to happen.  (See Katrina, Hurricane).  The real tragedy is that no one has been held accountable.

        Even if I were to take all those points at face value (I find many to be very specious), what makes the conspiracy theory absolutely impossible for me to believe is that way too many people would have to be involved.  I don't think you could hold a coalition like that together.  Someone would crack.  And the key thing missing from all those little holes and unexplained coincidences is the Who and they Why.  I guess I can imagine motive, but WHO would be involved in this?

        I think that taking advantage of a situation just does not equal having created it in order to take advantage of it.

        Anyway, just my reactions.  Thanks again for the link.

        •  incompetence doesn't (none)
          remember to pre-wire the buildings like WTC 7 for demolition. Or is that standard procedure on all sky scrapers?

          ...learn something new every day...

          by nhwriter on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:16:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  evidence (none)
            Not sure if you are still around to reply...

            Yes, the pre-wiring of WTC 7 would be the kind of thing that would be a big bright waving red flag that shows you all the holes in the official story mean the official story is a lie.

            But what evidence do you have of that?  (someone posted the video link earlier but I couldn't get it to work).  Yes, it's a BFD if true.  But evidence is needed.  If you have something, I'd be interested to see it (postings on Democratic Underground are not evidence).

            That's the problem with a lot of the theories floating around - the hinge on a couple of major unexplained events (and a host of minor ones), but the evidence that those unexplained events occurred is absent.

            •  BFD. Still here (none)
              in case you check back too. I have seen the video on the computer, and it seems to me I saw the PBS show when it aired. This is one of those things like back before the Iraq war "officially" started when I told my fellow journalism students that I was old enough to remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, in the name of Reagan. They called me a liar then. I found them one grainy image from one site, and still no one would look at it differently. But after a long while, the video was found by someone else & did go around.
              Anyway...
                 When the guy who's playing fast-n-loose with buildings and insurance companies says that he discussed it with the FDNY guy in charge at the time and that because of the growing danger they decided to "pull it," on purpose- well then, I think we have two people at least that need to be interviewed in depth, in public (on a witness stand, please). Certainly there are other irregularities, like everything from the "scene of the [accidents]" being removed tout-suite, and of course that's not 'direct evidence.' But I saw what Larry said, and so did everyone at PBS, not just the Alex Joneses of the world.
               I keep asking these simple questions, and not getting any definite answers. I will not stop, until someone says different.

              1.) Is it standard procedure to have your big buildings pre-wired for demolition? (corollary a.] if not standard, was it done for WTC? Larry thought so...
              2.) If not, why would he say that? What possible other meaning is there for this?

              Yes, it's from Alex Jones, but:
              "We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments."

              If you are still out there, I will do the research to find a working link for the video. It is out there and it needs to be questioned.

              ...learn something new every day...

              by nhwriter on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 03:50:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Read _The_New_Pearl_Harbor_ (none)
          Believing the official account is much more difficult after you have looked into the details.  

          Who?  Look to who benefited from 9/11.  Bush was a weak president going nowhere until that happened.  They got their opportunity to go into Afghanistan and secure the oil pipeline route.  They got to go into Iraq.  The who is the neocons: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.

          •  Which is why... (none)
            They had Bush heroically reading a copy of "My Pet Goat" to kindergarteners on 9/11, and filmed him look blankly off into space for at least 5 minutes after the attacks started.

            Strange that They would do that, if the purpose of the attack was to make Bush look strong and give the US a reason to go into Iraq.

            And you'd think that they'd at least manage to leave enough evidence lying around pointing to Iraq, instead of, say, Saudi Arabia.

            But hey, those Black Ops guys can get some pretty whacky ideas sometimes. But hey, who doesn't sometimes?

            •  who says Bush was in the know? (none)
              THAT is the stuff tin foil hats are made of!

              As for evidence pointing to Iraq, ahem... aren't we dismissing one of the reasons given for invading Iraq? Who would be foolish enough to cook something like that up or base a case for war on obviously forged documents?

            •  They were aware of the attacks.. (none)
              ...and yet the Secret Service did nothing to whisk Bush away to a safe location.  

              Coupled with that morning's activities of Bush Sr, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, it looks a bit fishy.

          •  THE NEW PEARL HARBOR (none)
            Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
            by David Ray Griffin
            foreword by Richard Folk

            "David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."
             --Howard Zinn, author of A Peoples History of the United States

            http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

            In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners. Albert Camus

            by hiley on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:29:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  and the point (none)
        of the "inside job" was what? To give Bush an opportunity to "lead"?

        Besides not following the logistics of the story, I'm not getting what the point of doing such a thing would be.

        •  It was a huge psychological blow to our country... (none)
          ...and after we were controlled by fear. They were able to rush into Iraq while we were still in a daze. It weakened the american psyche enough so we went along without question. They engaged in a war that has no face (the war on terror) and no country (Al-Quida and "terrorists"). Business is booming for defense contractors, and for the foreseeable future. War is good for business to alot of people in and around the Bush administration.
           I guess greed and corruption breed insanity.

           

          "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

          by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 11:32:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  check out letsroll911.org (none)
      they have links to a lot of the material. also reopen911.com is a good reference point.

      "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

      by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:10:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  list of local affiliates? (none)
    I'd love to email this information around so everyone I know can listen to the show... but it would be awfully helpful if you or someone else could provide a link to a list of local affiliates so people will know what channel to tune in to.
  •  Gave up a long time ago. (3.00)
    Can anyone else bring themselves to watch the crap they recycle over and over on history and national geographic channel? I cannot. Steel buildings do not collapse from fire. Their is only one way a modern steel structure comes down in 14 seconds.

    "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow" Abraham Lincoln

    by Thirsty on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:16:05 PM PDT

    •  Actually Fire Does Bring Down Steel Buildings (4.00)
      When the steel melts from the heat, it buckles and then gives way.  Takes a very hot fire though, from something along the lines of aviation gasoline.
      •  Melts, or... (none)
        ...loses its strength due to the heat.
      •  name once when this has happened (none)
        You can't, because it's never happened.

        Sorry, it's the truth.

        9/11 is the only time when steel buildings collapsed due to fire.   Ever.  

        WTC wasn't even hit by a plane, was barely on fire, and hadn't been on fire for very long at all.  Yet it collapsed in a free-fall?

        Give me a break.

        Watch the video of it again, with four years hindsight:  

        http://reopen911.org/video/30secondAdForBuilding7.mov

        I, too, used to pooh-pooh the controlled demolition idea until I saw this video and researched the history of fires in steel-framed buildings.

        •  That's funny... (3.80)
          ...because all those videos depicting the WTC being hit by jetliners sure made it look like the WTC was hit by jetliners.

          I smell another Daily Kos Mass Banning coming.  How the heck did this make #1 on the recommended diary list?

          •  He meant WTC 7, his mistake (2.50)
            Enough with the bullshit about banning someone, you guys are tiresome and obnoxious. You own the site?

            "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

            by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:47:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Never claimed to. (none)
              Markos makes a practice of banning people who either become very disruptive or damaging to the Democratic cause.  It's happened before, and I would imagine it will, indeed, happen again.  If this diary is any indication, it will happen sooner, rather than later.
          •  building 7 was not hit by airplanes, DUH! (4.00)
            WTC7 was a 49 story steel-framed building that was NOT hit by jetliners but collapsed in controlled-demolition fashion later in the day.

            You can watch it yourself.

            http://reopen911.org/video/30secondAdForBuilding7.mov

            You're just proving my point that the story of WTC7 is NOT known by people AT ALL.

            Like I said, even the National Geographic special on 911 completely ignored building 7 and its collapse.

          •  Oh, and the 'name a time it happened' trick... (4.00)
            ...is only valid if you yourself are either a fire investigator or architect.  Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass.

            If you knew anything about metals, you'd know that high heat can, indeed, weaken most high performance, modern metals.  The entire reason we use these high performance, modern metals in buildings is that they're quite strong for their weight.  The reason we need that strength is to hold the building up.

            This kind of conspiracy mongering makes everyone on the left look bad.

            •  Recent history has plenty of examples (none)
              of steel framed skyscrapers that burned for DAYS and never collapsed.

              The only one that has ever collapsed due to fire was building 7 on 9/11.

              That's not really something you can argue.  It's a simple fact.

            •  Ok Jonathon (none)
              What do you know about this? You are just ripping on people here like an obnoxious jerk. Why don't you go to reopen911.org, click on "multimedia" and WATCH the videos and catch up. There are actually experts on this site. They discuss building 7 at length and steel frame buildings and fires and give examples of similiar buildings that have burned for a day or two and NOT collapsed in free fall. . They also have the guy giving the order to "pull" the building right on tape. Frickin relax.

              "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

              by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:54:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, I'm always amazed (4.00)
                how people attack and get defensive about this stuff and show that they have less than an open mind.

                It just shows to me what a paradigm-forming event 9/11 was to so many people.  People do NOT want that paradigm questioned!

                It's a pretty big deal to have that paradigm shifted.  When it happens it literally transforms the world that you think you're living in.

                I wish people would have open minds about this and really look and study the situation, because if they did, objectively, we could really talk about it instead of being irrationally attacked when we try to discuss it.

                I'm glad ABC is airing this.  I hope they do it on television next.

                •  See, now this is the other reason... (none)
                  ...why I rip on this stuff.  Question a conspiracy theory, and immediately be met with accusations of collusion, or at least delusion.

                  It's really amazing how consistent conspiracy theorists are in their presentation...

                •  a disconnect (none)
                  it sounds "tinfoily" because (4.00 / 4)

                  you believe the official story and haven't looked into it.

                  Believe me, once you look into it, you'll realize the "official story" is full of holes.

                  It's an ugly ugly thing to look into.

                  Bottom line:  9/11 was an inside job.

                  and
                  [new]   Yeah, I'm always amazed (none / 0)

                  how people attack and get defensive about this stuff and show that they have less than an open mind.

                  Sounds like the detractors of the theory aren't the only ones with less than an open mind.

                  Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

                  by AnnArborBlue on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:05:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sorry (none)
                    I forgot to provide a link to the statement in my comment.

                    Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

                    by AnnArborBlue on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:08:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't see your point (none)
                      I HAD an open mind, which is how I came to study the situation and realize the official story is bunk.

                      Are you saying that my having had an open mind is now the same as having a closed-mind?

                      People once thought the earth was flat, too, and it was blasphemy to say otherwise.

                      Those round-earth guys are kooks I tell you!

                      •  okay (4.00)
                        applying your logic to the other side. It's not possible that those who don't believe this theory ALSO had an open mind at one time? That they considered the evidence, looked at both sides, and decided that the theory that the Bush Admin was complicit in 9/11 was just a bullshit theory?

                        Conspiracy theorists aren't the only ones who are allowed to come to conclusions.

                        Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

                        by AnnArborBlue on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:19:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh come on (none)
                          yes they are.  

                          The rest of us are just close-minded ninnies who are attempring to suppress the truth.

                          Didn't you read the manual....

                          (Cross-posted in my pants)

                          by Calishfornia on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:39:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  almost everyone (none)
                          who pooh-pooh's the notions has not done any reading or any research on it whatsoever.

                          If you have checked it all out and have decided to believe Bushco's "official story", well, that's your decision.

                          I honestly don't see how you could possibly believe it if you have, indeed, read the things and seen the things that I have.

                          Which is why people like me on this board are trying to share them.   I have nothing to gain and a few things to lose, but there ya have it.

                •  Sure (none)
                  "I wish people would have open minds about this and really look and study the situation, because if they did, objectively, we could really talk about it instead of being irrationally attacked when we try to discuss it."

                  And that's why we should teach creationism.

                  "There is such a thing as having such an open mind that it falls out" -Richard Dawkins

                  The world's address
                  a place that's worn
                  a sad pun that reflects a sadder mess
                  In case you haven't already guessed:
                  The world's a dress.

                  by Jaiwithani on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:30:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I'm ripping on unreasoned supposition... (4.00)
                ...and people making bold claims while knowing pretty much nothing about what they're saying.

                I've worked with metals; I DO know something about what heat does to them, and what a huge difference there is between untempered and tempered conditions of those metals.

                Now.  Do you have any idea how many people it would require to make something like this happen?  Do you have any idea how difficult that would be to pull off?  Who all is in on this conspiracy?  Don't just tell me "them" or "the administration", because I've got news for you: "the government" isn't "the administration".  The vast majority of government people are NOT political appointees, and aren't involved in administration efforts.  And that went double before 9/11, in the early parts of the Bush PResidency.

                Guys, conspiracies make all of us look bad.  I, for one, want the left back in power sometime in my lifetime.

                •  Please don't (4.00)
                  lose your skepticism because you miss the taste of power.

                  I imagine if someone were to suggest that the Republicans had burgled a psychiatrists office to get dirt on opponents might be scoffed at too.  But he would have been right.

                  I don't see some clear line beneath which the Bush Administration would never go.  There's no "floor" to the depth of their depravity and desire for power and wealth.

                  Here in the open market of ideas, the bad ones will go away eventually.  I don't think banning is required, "opinion leader" or no.

                  •  No, but... (none)
                    ...there is a pretty clear line below which most government employees wouldn't go.

                    Getting away with a mass conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans by dropping buildings on them, on American soil, is simply not plausible.

                    Come to think of it, this is always the weak point in a conspiracy theory.

                    •  Aaggh -- no mass conspiracy required (4.00)
                      I've heard estimates of twelve people in the inner group. If in fact Al Qaeda had something planned, all you had to do was leave the back door open and send a few of the security guards out for a smoke.

                      Black Ops do not depend on the cooperation of 'masses' for exactly the reasons you state. Once you get the core group in line, everything else relies on the power of chain of command.

                      Then you engage in heavy PR and disinfo, driven by the few people at the top. Gag and lock down anyone who stumbles on touchy evidence (e.g., Sibel Edmonds), classify all kinds of crap for "national security reasons', destroy the crime scenes, convene a hand-wave 'investigation'. Is some of this not publicly documented in the Northwoods material?

                  •  And to be clear... (4.00)
                    The fact that I want the left's agenda to move forward (by winning back political power) is the reason I'm even participating in this thread, not the reason why I doubt the conspiracy theories.

                    I doubt the conspiracy theories because I think it's simply not credible that something this big could be hidden, and because it IS credible to me, based on my experience with metals and general education as an engineer (and the remarks of people I find knowledgable on this topic) that the buildings collapsed due to the damage they suffered from fire and impact.

                    •  I somewhat agree but (4.00)
                      large-scale conspiracies can and do work and they have happened. The problem is most of the ones we know and accept as true occured before the modern era. The reality is you don't need a large number of conspirators to execute a large-scale conspiracy and get away with it. You only need to have loyal compatriots in the right place at the right time.

                      Now, the whole controlled demolition theory sounds ludicrous, but the idea that 9/11 attacks involved some criminal act certainly does not. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that there was active involvement of administration officials in impeding the investigation of the Hamburg cell and retarding overall responsiveness on the day of the attack.

                      As how conspiracy theorist plays progressive politics, I don't know. On one hand, their willingness to stray off the official accounts gives people the willingness to investigate the possibility of criminal activity in furthering the event.

                      Knowing this, we can see conspiracy theorists as both allies, in the sense of allowing investigators to broaden the inquiry and find specific agents in executing a criminal act; or they can be opponents, with the more fantastic theories used as justification to suppress inquiry into specifically criminal acts.

                      Gun control" is out of season, my friends, when your country is sliding into fascism! - proudtinfoilhat

                      by HunterKiller on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:28:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sorry I didn't make it clear. (none)
                        When I said 'criminal acts' I was referring to those executed by agents other than Al Qaeda.

                        Gun control" is out of season, my friends, when your country is sliding into fascism! - proudtinfoilhat

                        by HunterKiller on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:30:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  It's never been proved that a Nazi conspiracy (none)
                        was behind the Reichstag fire.  A lot of historians believe the official Nazi story, that the fire was set by the lone nut Marinus van der Lubbee.

                        However, I consider it close to certain that the fire was caused by a Nazi conspiracy (which undoubtedly facilitated van der Lubbe's arson.)  There's not only the matter of cui bono.  There's also the coincidence stressed by Hans Bernd Gisevius in his book: the evening of the fire, at the height of an election campaign, the three chief speakers of the Nazi Party, Hitler, Goebbels, and Göring, not only were all in Berlin, but all happened to have no speaking engagement that evening.

                        And, if a Nazi conspiracy was responsible, it has succeeded in hiding its tracks up to now, and probably forever.

                •  If it's in MSM it's fair game (none)
                  Makros seems to have good judgement as far as banning bullshit and allowing debate. I get the point, but some debunkers are pretty black or white in their assesments.( I'm not saying you, just in general). I belive it was a fix and venture into foil territory on occasion, but I'm not writing journals about stuff I found on Rense. I defend debate and respect the opinions of those who dissagree while also not putting up with whackjobs: if "pod people" come along I rip 'em to shreds.
                  But I'll give props to the debunkers on this, there haven't been any recipies yet.

                  "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" R.Piper

                  by McGirk SF on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:51:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, please (none)
              Oh, and the 'name a time it happened' trick...

              ...is only valid if you yourself are either a fire investigator or architect.

              The only way this logic makes sense is if all discussion on the topic is limited to architects, fire investigators, and people with a background in controlled demolition. If it takes a certain level of professional training to say "that never happens," then it takes the same level of training to say "that's what happened."

              The folly of this whole, inevitable exchange is that the physical evidence is gone. It's gone forever. It's been recycled. We are reduced to playing Dr. Frist, diagnosing by video.

              I have my suspicions about what happened, and I despair at the inability to comprehend basic physics or fundamental architectural practice here. But the most important thing, far and away, is that the materiel from which we could have known what happened is gone forever.

              What's left, what we need to concentrate on, is the coverup. It's not right, but to move forward we have to admit that the most potentially damning evidence was cleared up and whisked away before the tears had dried from our eyes.

            •  Trick? (none)
              Why is naming a time that a steel building collapsed from fire a trick unless you believe that recorded skyscraper disasters are some kind of slight of hand.

              As for the heat required to melt steel, think again about the rate at which jet fuel burns. The "melted steel" theory is probably the weakest of all the official theories, and one not accepted by those who make a living studying the properties of metals.

              •  That's (none)
                simply not true. It doesn't have to melt, all it has to do is expand and soften and this is well known with page after page of engineering tables for all kinds of materials at varying temperatures.

                Read UTI, your free thought forum

                by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:30:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  page after page (none)
                  of engineering materials take into account that steel is a relatively low conductor of heat. You will also note that heat conductivity depends on not only the material and the source of heat and the length of time exposed to the heat, but the amount of surface exposed to the heat.
                  •  Heat (none)
                    conductivity is expressed using a derivation from Fourier's Law and is written in SI as watts per meter Kelvin. Using that scale, the heat conductivity of carbon steel runs something like 50-70 w/m.K. varying as a function of temperature. Water is around 0.6 m/m.K for 0 through 100 degrees C. Steel is about one-hundred times as conductive as water for heat. I have no idea where you got the idea that steel was a poor heat conductor.

                    Read UTI, your free thought forum

                    by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:56:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  what? (none)
                      Carbon steel has a thermal conductivity between 31-34 k which puts it into the poor range for heat conductivity among metals. Silver at 235 k, copper at 223 k and even aluminum at 128 k.  

                      Yes, steel is a better conductor than water, but since water is not a building material, I have no idea why its heat conductivity is relevant to this discussion.

                      •  The key (none)
                        is 'for other metals'. As substances in general go steel conducts heat real well. Well enough that calling it a 'poor conductor' is at best misinformed and easily checked by reviewing the very tables you claimed to know about. I have a chip from a space shuttle tile right in front of me as I write this. That stuff is a poor conductor of heat.

                        Conductivity relative to water is sure as hell relevant to this discussion, because you tried to pretend that steel wouldn't soften, implying it's not a good enough conductor of heat. Everyuone can relate to water: Take a red hot chunk of iron about the size of your head and put it in bathtub of water at room temperature. Keep replacing it as it cools off with another red hot chunk. Let's see how long you remain in that tub ... five minutes? Ten? Then recall that steel conducts about 100 times better than that bath water!

                        Here's another you can do much more easily. Take a big, heavy, steel pan with a steel handle and put it on a red hot stove, wait ten minutes, now I dare you, I double dare you to pick that pan up with your bare hand!
                        Wasn't 'time for the steel to heat up?' becuase it's a 'relatively poor conductor of heat ...  Was that your implication? Yes or no? If yes, then you're wrong about that. There was plenty of time. I'm amazed it took as long as it did.

                        Look, no offense. The reason I know this stuff is because I had to help teach a metals lab once and I have a degree in physics.
                        And I would have let it slide with a gentle rejoinder of the phyiscal/thermal properties of steel which you grossly misrepresented to help prop up your failed argument. You didn't take that olive branch first time around, so that's why I'm being a bit more firm now. Learn from this; out there in blogostan are a lot of people who will delight in embarassing you when you make fundamental mistakes like this. I'm not one of them, I'm trying to help you.

                        Read UTI, your free thought forum

                        by DarkSyde on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 01:56:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  you are mixing your experiments again (none)
                          What is the relevance to a pan on a stove? Made out of any material? Your stove is designed to 1) apply a constant source of heat, 2) evenly distribute heat.  You can do your very own pan experiment by cooking some chicken with only half the pan on the burner. Yum. Now try cooking the chicken for varying lengths of time with an uneven source of heat. Double yum.

                          Between your coat hanger example and your stove example, I don't think you're helping. Go back to your lab and work up an experiment that actually meets the conditions, i.e., an inconsistant source of heat applied unevenly to different surface amounts for different time exposures. Try to produce a consistant result with that. Then reproduce your results three times under different heat, source, surface and time conditions.

                          Don't tell me about your expertise, show me your work.  Calculate what tempertures would have to be sustained to what surface area of steel would have to be exposed and the rate of heat transfer necessary weaken massive steel columns in less than an hour.

                    •  Steel IS a poor conductor of heat !!!! (none)
                      compared to other metals

                      have you ever welded/brazed metals?

                      you can heat the tip of a steel rod to red/orange heat and not wear gloves..if you try the same trick with a rod of aluminum...OUCH... almost immediately after you aim the torch at the aluminum you have to drop it so you won't burn your fingers

          •  C'mon. Same people who faked those ... (4.00)
            ...jets crashing into the WTC faked the Apollo landings on the moon.

            Thirty-one million new blogs are created each year. Try ours at The Next Hurrah.

            by Meteor Blades on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:19:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You (4.00)
          don't have to be a fire investigator to understand this for cryiong out loud. That building had an unusual architecture. The steel on the outside was most of the structural material in it and the buildings were tall.

          Here's a fun home science project and I mean that seriously, you can teach yourself and/or have fun with your kids without having to know anything about mathematics/statics: Go to your closet, get out a few coat hangers. Fashion them into a rectangular framework with four vertices. Make it about three to four feet tall and six inches wide to approximate a tall building. Stand it on one end. Put a couple of heavy books or a five-pound weight on the top nicely balanced so that the structure bows slightly and is under compressional tension. Now take out an arc welder or maybe even a cigarette lighter and heat one small spot in one of the vertices halfway up and it will soften and bend and that thing will fall over without the metal ever melting. That's not a perfect model by any means but it'll give you some idea what happened.

          As for the 'explosions some folks reported seeing at the bottom or midway as the structure fell, if you take that kind of mass and area and drop it at near terminal velocity, the air column underneath will heat up so much and so fast it can literally catch fire from the combination of pressure and kinetic energy transfer. And in this case it was trapping flaming debris and burning jet fuel in that comressing column of air to boot. The effect is that you would get a huge discharge of superheated air as the structure pancakes and probably, given the size of the building, a number of them at different vertical points. Hardly surprising that one might see jets of flaming ejecta blossoming just like a bomb.

          Read UTI, your free thought forum

          by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:55:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you have steel coat hangers? (none)
            Wow, and I though Joan Crawford was odd. You're ignoring the steel core of the building, just like other simulations did.

            You're also talking about applying applying fire directly to a surface, which is NOT the scenario in any of the buildings. See the fireballs? THAT was jet fuel, which burns quickly and does not sustain the temperatures needed to melt steel. The steel was also coated with insulation.

            The cause of the collapse is very much in debate by experts of every field, the odd thing is each field claims that it was another part of the structures that failed.

            •  The (none)
              inner core was also weakened, even more so as it was in the center of the fire. And it wouldn't even come close to supporting that load by itself. All you need is for the load on top to get far enough over a single vertex and down she goes; all the collumnar load bearing vertical struts either tear or compress and the floors start pankaking down on top of each other. That's why it had an outer frame in the first place. It's fine to speculate. I have no problem with that. But physical relaity is not something that you can negotiate with.

              Read UTI, your free thought forum

              by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:02:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The cause of the collapse (none)
                is debated in the scientific community. There is no agreement on the cause of the collapse. So, what we are left with is - all we need is for the steel in the core columns and/or external columns and/or floor trusses to become compromised to the extent that 3 different steel structures would fail - from 3 different degrees of damage at 3 different structural points with 3 different exposures to combustable material and 3 different exposures to heat from that combustable material and 3 different burn times - yet all 3 collapsing in the exact same fashion.  Pretty remarkable odds.
                •  You have fallen (none)
                  for the 9-11 equivelent of 'evolution is debated in the scientific community' kind of nonsense. You find a few whackaloons with cred or you a couple of actual papers and pull some out of context quotes and think it's controversial. It's not. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat as substances go. The collapse given the physics and load dynamics of the building makes perfect sense.
                  Only a few metals like gold, silver, copper, and aluminum are better heat conductors BTW. Diamond at high temperature is the best as far as I know. But calling steel a 'poor conductor of heat' like you did upstream is as accurate as calling it a 'poor conductor of electricity' because gold or silver or copper are a better conductor. That's grossly misleading.

                  Read UTI, your free thought forum

                  by DarkSyde on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 02:12:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not so at all (none)
                    Look at the number of experts from diverse fields who do not agree, a large part of that is that they are working in the dark with nothing to test. You, who say you're experienced with scientific methodology should know better.  You can crap on their conclusions all you want, ain't no skin off my nose, but all of the conclusions are at best theory.
          •  A few problems, and questions (none)
            From GreatBuildings.com:

            The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures.

            The façade bore none of the weight of the building, it only took on wind loads.

            The core of 42 densely interlinked 4-inch-thick (for the first 80+ floors) steel beams actually held up the building. The floors were heavily reinforced with crossbeams. Before it suddenly became unfashionable for magazines to quote architects on the matter, Harper's quoted the WTC architect, Minoru Yamasaki, as saying that the decision to stop at 110 stories was arbitrary; they could have kept right on going. That's the kind of scalability that the WTC's design buys you.

            Another thing missing from your experiment: Structural steel conducts heat pretty well (certainly better that whatever your hangers are made of), to the point where a 2000+ degree fire directly applied to a steel rod might heat it to 600 degrees, as long as the rest of the rod is cool. The only ways to get the WTC's steel infrastructure up to the claimed temperatures involve temperatures well beyond the ability of any hydrocarbon fuel to produce, or fires sustained long enough to outlast the steel's ability to wick it away (this is how steel oil rigs go up, eventually).

            ArchitectureWeek's near-contemporaneous analysis is interesting. They consider the official line plausible, while remarking at the great difficulty involved in getting anything concrete to analyze. WTC7's later, entirely skeptical analysis is an interesting contrast. I'd be particularly interested in any engineer or architect's reaction to it.

            I would like to emphasize, since this is a very polarizing topic, that I don't claim to know what happened. I can't prove that the official story is bunk, although it sets off my personal bullshit detector. I'm more interested in presenting the evidence that I find persuasive and seeing what happens. If this site is good for nothing else, it's good for that.

            Believe me, given my suspicions, I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong.

        •  And? What does the video show? (4.00)

          It shows a building falling down.    That's what would happen to a building if it were a controlled demolition---or not.

          What else would a building do if its structure were weakened due to fire and prior impacts?

          It would do just about the same thing.  Buildings are very heavy and gravity points down---straight down.  It's laws of physics.

          When the structure can't handle the load it gives way and the acceleration from the upper levels falling down further adds dynamic loading to the lowers so there is progressive collapse, just as in the picture.

          People get their ideas of what things "should" look like from disaster movies.  They're wrong.

          •  Exactly (4.00)
            Listen to MBK here folks. In this case the buildings were huge. There probably was some lateral dispalcement but when that displacement is a few dozen feet on a 1000 ft buidling surrounded by smoke and dropping at probably 200 plus MPH (The terminal velocity of a largish dense obect like steel and concrete) yuo won't see it. I had a friend go to that area a few days afterward. No one bothered him, hepretty much wondered around as he wished to with a camera spouting a telephoto lens claiming he was writing an article and aside from a few folks telling him 'stay away from here buddy we're trying to move this piece of "X" and you have to stay back' no one really gave him a hard time security wise. In fact the hundreds of ordinary poeple working at the site wanted to talk their brains out.

            Read UTI, your free thought forum

            by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:22:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Find one example (none)
        Aside from the three on September 11.  The metallurgical experts discount the theory. Jet fuel burns quickly, and does not sustain the temperatures needed to melt steel (steel melts around 1370 degrees C). It would take extreme heat applied to steel over a period of time to transfer the kind of heat to even a fraction of the steel columns.
    •  It doesn't have to melt (4.00)
      In the case of the WT Towers all it had to do is lose some rigidity at a single point on an outside column and settle and the massive weight above it shifts over that point and that's all she wrote. And yes, jet fuel burning at 500 C can cause changes in geometry of the framework building like that through thermal expansion and softening.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:29:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  WTC Design (none)
        Weren't the Towers designed to survive a plane crash, given their location within miles of three major airports?  Did the engineers ignore the effects of burning jet fuel in their tests?  Were the physical properties of jet fuel in the 1960's different from the fuel used  today?  Did they assume that any fire in the WTC would be extinguished in less than an hour?

        This isn't an endorsement of the conspiracy theories, but I have a lot of  questions about the design of the World Trade Center.  And the contention that burning office materials actually melted the steel bothers me as well.  Were there any restrictions on the types of materials allowed inside the buildings? Or did everything depend on extinguishing any fire immediately?

        "President Bush has done a great job---He's even exceeded the expectations of those of us who supported him."---Jack Welch, GE Chairman Emeritus

        by Siminon on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:16:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing near as big as the planes that hit towers. (none)
          n/t

          Gun control" is out of season, my friends, when your country is sliding into fascism! - proudtinfoilhat

          by HunterKiller on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:34:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They accounted for fires (none)
          But not this combination.  3 things happened:

          1. The jets (considerably larger than jets available when they planned the building) took out critical parts of the structure.  North Tower lost the central core; South Tower lost the outside supports.  So in each case about half the structural support was immediately eliminated

          2. Columns were fireproofed with spray-on insulation.  This would normally protect the columns from major fire, but the crash sheared it off.

          3. The fires from avgas-soaked office materials were intense.  Cantor Fitzgerald employees 10 floors above the North Tower impact said they were being roasted to death, and had basically stopped calling by the collapse.

          So yes, the building was designed to take a lot, it just wasn't designed to take an impact larger than was plausible during design and loss of fireproofing and a supercharged fire.  It's amazing it stood up as well as it did and the engineers and architects deserve acclaim for a job well done.
          •  Boeing 707 (none)
            I'm trying to Google it now, but wasn't the 707, (pre-cursor to the Boeing 747) just as big as the Boeing 767, and bigger than the 757?  I'm pretty sure it had four engines (I keep thinking of Air Force One in the movie JFK), and since the engines were less efficient than the engines used today, it had to carry alot of fuel.

            "President Bush has done a great job---He's even exceeded the expectations of those of us who supported him."---Jack Welch, GE Chairman Emeritus

            by Siminon on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:54:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  almost gave up (none)
      but National Geo gave me a chance to watch in silence while my no-tin-foil-for-me husband sat there silently fuming as my teenager asked innocent questions like how come the steel fell down like that... and many more until it started to look like a pattern. Plus I got a chance to ask afterward, what did they say about WTC 7? Oh, they didn't? Hmmmm. Truth by understatement.

      ...learn something new every day...

      by nhwriter on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:22:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Think (4.00)
        about that. Your evidence that there was a conspiracy on bldg seven was that they didn't say anything about it ... ?

        I remember folks who claimed there was a scene in one of the LoTR movies that accidentally showed a car from an ariel shot. Their evidence was, there wasn't a car shown so they must have removed the scene ...

        Read UTI, your free thought forum

        by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:24:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no. The point was (none)
          that he won't listen to any of it, and I like to examine too much of it. Our teen is just acquiring the inquiring mind that learns from both sides. In the end, I said to her, I don't know about steel, it's a good question, look it up. And I said, if this was really a show about buildings coming down that day, isn't WTC 7 a really big thing not to even mention? Just so she would realize that an apparent "authority" like National Geographic, might not tell you the whole story, AND might not even clue you in that they didn't tell you something. Don't believe me, I said. Think, and question, and trust your instincts. Asking is always better than not.

          ...learn something new every day...

          by nhwriter on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:02:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I hate this conspiracy crap. (4.00)
      hey, I love "conspiracies" if they are convincing fantasy reading.  The 9/11 ones are not.  The chain of events for the towers to fall are well researched and convincing engineering.  Believing that Dubya's government is capable of anything on the scope of 9/11 stretches the imagination to the breaking point.  Those incompetents were caught with their pants down; anyone can see it.

      I cringe when I see lefties frothing 9/11 conspiracies.  They compromise legitimate questions about accountability and taint by association those of us looking for real answers.  It cheapens the debate with wild fallacy.

      "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

      by marjo on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:29:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Once again you miss the point (none)
        All of the things we are talking about here is what is missing and completely ignored by the 9/11 commission, most likely because there is no explanation for it. A whitewash.

        "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

        by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:46:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo (4.00)
        I cringe when I see lefties frothing 9/11 conspiracies.  They compromise legitimate questions about accountability and taint by association those of us looking for real answers.  It cheapens the debate with wild fallacy.

        Exactly.

        There are legitimate questions about dodging responsibility, about incompetence, ignored warnings, and plenty more.

        When people go crazy with wild (and easily debunked) conspiracies, it just makes it that much easier for rational people to dismiss all demands for accountability from this gang of incompetent criminals.

    •  Steel buildings DO collapse from fire (4.00)
      This is not up for "debate;" that would be like "debating" the boiling point of water at sea level.

      The temperature inside a burning office building or residential structure is not fed just by wood; there are a lot of highly-combustible materials, such as plastics, that burn at very high temperatures. If these burn long and hot enough, it's easy for them to exceed the temperature at which steel begins to sag. (The "typical" fire can peak up to 2,000 degrees F, although it more likely will not exceed 1,500 degrees F.)

      Steel loses approximately half of its strength and stiffness at 1,100 degrees F, and it loses approximately 80 percent at 1,200 degrees F. At 2,200 degrees F it has virtually NO strength. (From standard engineering tables.) THAT IS WHY STEEL BEAMS IN BUILDINGS ARE INSULATED FROM FIRE! If the insulation is breached, or if a long time elapses while the fire still burns (so the heat can penetrate the insulation), the steel begins to heat to the ambient temperature, and it will then begin to sag. If heating is very rapid, the temperature of the steel beam can quickly reach levels at which the steel begins to fail.

      There are few examples of steel buildings failing during a fire, and that's because construction standards REQUIRE insulation of the steel beams, and that insulation almost always survives. In the case of the WTC, a jet plane rammed into the building -- a highly unusual occurrence, we hope -- and that disloged the insulation.

      A study in 2002 found 22 cases of multi-story building collapses, including the WTC. That's very rare. It typically occurs while buildings are being renovated/constructed and insulation is displaced, and fire sprinklers fail, and the fire lasts a long time, etc.

      See, for example, http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/ePubs_Innovative_Ideas/FactsForSteelBuildingsFir e.pdf from the American Institute of Steel Construction.  It discusses these factors and discusses some buildings that collapsed.

      •  Your link proves the point (none)
        that the only steel high-rise buildings to collapse completely as a result of fire, ever, were the WTC towers.

        A study in 2002 found 22 cases of multi-story building collapses, including the WTC.

        Here are the pertinent data from that study (pp. 39-40):

        Iwankiw and Beitel (2002) compiled results of past multi-story building collapses, either partial or total, that were directly caused by fires. In this study, multi-story buildings were defined as those with 4 or more stories. A total of 22 such cases were identified, with September 11, 2001 disasters accounting for 5 of these incidents (WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7, and the Pentagon.)

        [Note: most of the Pentagon did not collapse at all, and not even the section that was hit collapsed all the way to the ground. I don't have information on WTC 5. But now we're down to 17 possible other cases.]

        The cases occurred not just in the U.S., but also internationally.
        [....]
        Fortunately, fires in tall buildings do not often lead to partial or total collapse, as in these 22 documented cases. Furthermore, all of the other collapses were not nearly as catastrophic as those in the September 11, 2001 experience.

        ["Catastrophic" is defined in this report, apparently, by number of fatalities, so does not directly relate to the question of collapse.]

        [....]

        Notable examples of excellent structural integrity under adverse fire conditions exist:

        • The 1988 fire in the 62-story First Interstate Bank building in Los Angeles in which 4 floors burned out (Klem,1988).
        • The 1991 fire in the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia in which 9 floors burned out (Klem, 1991).
        • The 1991 fire in the 12-story Mercantile Credit Insurance Building in which 3 floors burned out.
        • The 1990 fire in the 14-story Broadgate Phase 8 building in the U.K., which had unprotected steel beams and columns during erection (Newman et al, 2000).
        Nonetheless, some casualties and major economic losses were still incurred in these steel-framed buildings. Complete burnouts of several floors destroyed the interior contents and caused substantial and permanent floor sagging and steel beam distortions, as would be expected after a long and severe fire exposure. In the One Meridian Plaza building, main support beams deflected as much as 18 in., and one entire area of the 22nd floor had deformed as much as 4 to 5 ft. All of these buildings, except One Meridian Plaza, were repaired and returned to service. While One Meridian Plaza could have been returned to service, the owner chose to demolish the building and build a different combination of occupancies.

        Sao Paulo, Brazil had two major high-rise fires in the 1970s in buildings that were constructed of reinforced concrete.
        The 1972 fire in the 31-story Andraus building (Willey, 1972) resulted in 16 casualties, while the 1974 fire in the 25-story Joelma building (Hall, 2001) caused 189 deaths. These fires both caused severe spalling of large portions of the exterior concrete walls, joists, and columns, due
        to the severe fire and high temperatures, exposing the reinforcing steel. Both the Andraus and Joelma buildings remained standing, and were subsequently repaired and returned to service.

        The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

        • 7 buildings were constructed of reinforced concrete, including the Pentagon.
        • 6 buildings were constructed of structural steel, including the WTC towers and buildings 5 and 7.
        • 5 buildings were constructed of brick and/or masonry.
        • 2 buildings were constructed of wood.
        • 2 buildings were of unknown construction.

        The collapse distribution by building story height was as
        follows:
        • 13 buildings had 4 to 8 stories.
        • 3 buildings had 9 to 20 stories.
        • 6 buildings had 21 or more stories.

        Note well: every single tall structural steel building on this list either remained standing and was restored to service, or could have been restored but was demolished by choice. Griffin's (and others') assertion that never before or since 9/11/2001 has a steel building collapsed as a direct result of fire is true, according to this report.

    •  8 seconds and 10.4 sec..... (none)
      if they had "pancaked" they would have taken longer...these were free falling because the supports below were being blown out The only 3 steel buildings in history to collapse from "fire" all happened on 9/11/01. Yeah right.

      "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

      by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:18:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's see who ruins this thread first (3.00)
    The debunking chefs or the Pod People.

    "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" R.Piper

    by McGirk SF on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:19:18 PM PDT

  •  Thing (4.00)
    is, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've read some of this guys stuff and he's all over the board between 'poor warning and response' type criticism which sounds legit,to [paraphrasing and exaggerating] 'the CIA flew empty airplanes in loaded with explosives under radio control for <insert shadowey conspiracy cartel>'.

    There's bunch of claims, not just one and some of them are, to say the least, extraordinary. It's going to take some extraordinary evidence, and I mean real, real, solid evidence, for most of us to the latter kind of thing seriously.

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:19:21 PM PDT

    •  there is plenty of evidence (4.00)
      that shows that the official story is pure fiction.

      Everything beyond that is speculation.

      Once you know you've been lied to by those you trust, your imagination can really take off.

      What's the truth?  Somebody, somewhere, knows.   I'm sure Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld know.   Bush?  He doesn't know shit.  Why would they tell him?  He might accidentally blurt something out in some press conference.  

      •  Are you familiar with Peter Lance? (none)
        He was on Coast to Coast last weekend and he has his shit together. He knows the official story is BS, but he knows to stay objective and rely only on evidence not speculations.

        He actually named names and said he could PROVE it.    One person he named was Dietrik Snell, another is Patrick Fitzgerald, and also Jamie Gorelick.  He claims he can PROVE it! These people's envolvment in there knowledge stems from the Ramzi Yousef case and his Bojinka plot. Apparently the ultimate mastermind of 9/11 was not KSM, but Yousef.

        "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

        by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:38:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  interesting. I'll look into that. n/t (none)
        •  I think Randi Rhoads had him on, (none)
          her show, I couldn't find him on her website but I will look again. I want ot see what he has to say. Any links for him?

          "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

          by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:49:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i'll believe it (none)
          when he PROVES it.

          "What they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person."

          by subtropolis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:50:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  me too (none)
            thats why I plan on reading his books, plus the new one he has coming out.

            So if what you say is true, then check his work out if you get the chance, or if you really want to know.

            "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

            by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:54:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ok, but only when he PROVEs it (n/t) (none)

              "What they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person."

              by subtropolis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 11:00:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  PeterLance.com (none)
                check it out...trust me...he's no tin-foil Alex Jones type.

                He knows a lot about Al Qaeda, especially Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheik Muhammed, they are equally as important as bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, even though they are in US custody, their roles in the "planes operation" is vital.

                If you decide to go to his website, check out his bio (link at top of his page) and see for yourself.

                Thomas Kean, of the 9/11 Commission, read Lance's 1000 Years for Revenge and afterwards had his staff get Lance to come to a 9/11 hearing during the investigation do provide his input.

                And keep in mind...the people he named were Dietrick Snell, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Jamie Gorelick.  Not George W., Lord Cheney, or Rumsfeld.
                He said he could prove that they are guilty of intentional criminal negligence, not planning the actual attacks or anything whacky like that, but I have no idea what he plans to do about it, or if he even can do anything about it.

                "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

                by Darth Codis on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 04:48:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ok (none)
                  I'll check it out. But he's not putting Patrick Fitzgerald on the bad guy list is he? We need him.

                  "What they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person."

                  by subtropolis on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:27:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yeah...Fitzgerald is on the list (none)
                    I was shocked about that too.  But apparently Fitzgerald is really good at keeping secrets.

                    I don't know the details, but apparently Fitzgerald was one of the prosecuting attornies during the Ramzi Yousef (Bojinka-plot) trial.  He had a hand in helping the FBI and Dep of Justice cover their asses (CYA) regarding Yousef's laptop computer, his terrorist operations that he was planning (which includes a beefed-up version of 9/11 and also killing the pope), Yousef's relations with KSM, and the sharing of information with other intelligence agencies(that's where Gorelick comes in) and other things too.

                    "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

                    by Darth Codis on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 02:17:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Well (4.00)
        specifally what is the hypothesis we're talking ahout here? Is it that the WH should have had an inkling something was afoot given the intel? I'll stipulate that no problem.

        Is it that the attack was staged? That the planes were empty? That the buildings were secretly blown up? There's like dozens of potshot claims here all wrapped into one vague statement about a conspricay but no single explanatory framework which provides testable evidentiary claims. It's lik when a creationist claims that we don't have any transitional bat fossils which we don't ... and ... and ... therefore evolution never happened; the earth is 6000 years old; his cosmogony is thus validated from Genesis to Revelations. It's at best vague, and possibly non sequitor to say 'the offical explanation stinks' and then imply that means 'something was set up'.

        Read UTI, your free thought forum

        by DarkSyde on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:30:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you bring up a great point (none)
          Thats the problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories...its complete chaos. Some say it was planned and executed by the government or by the 'shadow' government or by the neo-con cabal or the Israeli Mossad.

          Then there are those that say some in government knew it was coming but did nothing to prevent it, or even had a hand in letting it happen.

          Then things get even crazier when the topic of controlled demolitions comes up, and WTC7, and the crash-site at the Pentagon. OR whether Flight 93 was shot down.

          There is no consensus at all among those who believe in one conspiracy theory or another. Lets call it conspiracy chaos theory. ITs madness.

          But here's the thing DarkSyde, I read your diaries, and I have a good idea that you are no jackass, I have been trying to figure out for myself what the real story of 9/11 is.  Right now I think place to look for true objectivity is Peter Lance.  He doesn't automatically buy into all the conspiracy stuff, but he knows the official story is BS.  From what I have seen (CSPAN) and heard (Coast to Coast AM) from Peter Lance I feel that he is truly objective and he is the person to look to to figure out what can be figured out based on EVIDENCE not SPECULATION.  

          So if you are interested, check out his website at www.peterlance.com, and check his books out.  I'm telling you, he tells it like it is based on evidence.

          "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

          by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:53:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The fact that no one has devised a conspiracy (none)
            theory for 9/11 that ties up all loose ends and is remotely plausible is no reason to believe the official story, if that too contains impossibilities.

            Nobody has yet dreamed up a scenario for the JFK assassination that ties up all the loose ends.  But that's no reason to believe the Warren Commission Report.

            •  yeah the official story is mostly BS (none)
              the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash.  I'm just saying with all the multitudes of theories out there, there is absolutely almost no consensus of any kind of unified theory.  

              Thats why chaos ensues whenever the discussion comes up.  And unless you are very specific in your arguement you will be ignored or ripped to shreds by the debunkers.  An example would be like when someone says 9/11 was orchestrated by "the government."  Which would imply the whole government was in on it, which is of course insane.  OR when people say Bush planned it, ha!, like that horse's ass could plan something of that magnitude.  

              "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

              by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:54:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  "Once you know you've been lied to... (none)
        by those you trust, your imagination can really take off."

        Nothing wrong with that so long as you don't confuse your imagination with reality. Imagination may make a good movie or book, but it's not sufficient for a reality based community. We need facts.

  •  reopen911.org (none)
    Click on "multimedia" and watch the videos, decide for yourself.

    "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

    by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:22:29 PM PDT

  •  Bah (2.62)
    The only thing that makes me angrier than the criminal incompetence of the Republican party is the damn leftist conspiracy loonies. Go away.
    •  And what would your point of view be? (none)
      Since you didn't present anything but a blanket put down. So, you think the 911 Commission had it all figured out, or what?

      The only thing that pisses me off more than dangerous neocons is 'Dems' who put down a whole swath of people without offering any intelligent opinion.

      •  I find this statement ironic (4.00)
        since those of us here who disagree with the "9/11 was an inside job" theory are dismissed by those who DO believe this theory with a smugness that only they know the truth, and calls for us to "open your eyes!" to the truth.

        That doesn't seem like reasoned debate either.

        Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

        by AnnArborBlue on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:51:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Irony intended (none)
          I go out of my way to have intelligent discussion about these issues, and would like the same from other people. I am open to skepticism, and have changed my opinion on some 9/11 stuff based on dKos skeptics. But content-free flame-baiting like the nonsense I responded to deserves to be called out.
    •  The only thing that makes me angrier (3.25)
      than criminally incompentent Republicans or leftist conspiracy loonies are those who would become arbitors of which opinions should be allowed.
      There's a long list of people who have been scoffed at because their ideas didn't fit into the comfortable paradigm of left and right or acceptable and unacceptable, who turned out to be right in the end.
      I'm old enough to remember when Howard Zinn was considered a wacko commie by the Right and having "gone too far" by certain members of the Left.
      •  You may have misinterpeted me (none)
        I don't have a problem with those who don't belive, The deubunking chefs start posting random recipies on threads like this. It's immature. I'm cool with debate.

        "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" R.Piper

        by McGirk SF on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:30:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No kidding (none)
      Sometimes after reading stuff like this I just feel like going out and buying myself a tire iron.

      To use on myself, mind you, not the tinfoilers. I figure after a little bit of brain damage I either won't have to listen to them anymore, or I'll start agreeing with them.

      Either way I'm happier. ;>

    •  Go join the rest of the sheeple herd.....nt (none)

      "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

      by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:21:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Conspiracy Theory = Blame Game = Spin (4.00)
    Agreed!  There is a huge list of unexplained inconsistencies between the official story of 9/11 and the data which can be assembled from all the independent sources.

    If you watch the video of the 47 story Building 7 at the WTC collapse neatly into its own footprint at free-fall speed you will begin to suspect the official account.  

    And remember when in his first official TV appearance, Bush cautioned us not to believe any
    "conspiracy theories"?  Makes you wonder why he  used that phrase.  I doubt that most of us were considering conspiracies--at first.  

    Use of "conspiracy theory" is just like the other spins like "blame game", or "pointing fingers" that the WH uses to limit discussion, discredit free thought and foster a spirit of open inquiry.

    Glad to hear these points of view are going to be aired.

    •  more misinformation (none)

      If you watch the video of the 47 story Building 7 at the WTC collapse neatly into its own footprint at free-fall speed you will begin to suspect the official account.

      What else would a building do when it's structure weakened?  It would fall straight down due to gravity.

      •  Thanks (4.00)
        Just want to thank you, Jonathan, and DarkSyde for taking the time and the emotional load to post your comments. Woof, woof. The vast majority of us lurkers are simply too wearied by the endless repetition of this stuff. And you're doing a great job.

        Here's a good explanation of the Pentagon "mystery":
        http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

        Maybe we can get that one out of the way at least.

        The children of the poor perish in their beds, while the blastocysts of the wealthy are preserved for all eternity

        by CarbonFiberBoy on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:00:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The point (none)
        of the "free Fall" issue is that if a building "Pancakes" due to upper floors failing, the upper floors have to contact the floor beneath, transfer the energy, and that takes time - not a lot, but a measureable amount. A true "free Fall" results from the lower floors carefully being released to fall themselves just before the floor above hits it. That's really the only way to make sure it falls into it's own footprint. So either the building demolishes at the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/sec squared) or slower. Actually the same is true if the building fails at the bottom... as the structure curshes into itself, that takes some time subtracted from the acceleration of gravity, so the building should still fall slower than one demolished on purpose....Should be possible to time the video, get the building height and do the math...
  •  that this diary is #1 (4.00)
    on the reco list without even a link to verify that the radio progam is what the diarist says it is, is, to me, a sad day for Dkos.

    Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

    by AnnArborBlue on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:37:24 PM PDT

    •  that people don't believe their own gov't (none)
      is a sad time for the country, and the world.
      •  Bad news for you (none)
        Here's the thing: the Bush administration isn't the government.  It isn't even the same thing as the executive branch.  The vast majority of government employees (I do know this -- I'm a federal employee with the Dept. of Commerce) are career employees, and a majority are Democrats.

        With that in mind, the idea that a mass conspiracy on the part of "the government" to kill loads of Americans on American soil (in a major American city and only 8 months into the allegedly responsible administration, no less) by dropping buildings on them, then point the finger at terrorists is simply not credible.  

        There are things small groups of people can get away with.  This isn't one of them.

      •  Hmmm...Enron,9/11,Iraq,Katrina,CIA leak.... (none)
         2000/2004 elections,downing street memos etc., etc., why wouldnt we believe these guys?

        "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

        by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:27:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yup. (2.66)
      Stuff like this makes all of us on the left look like kooks.  Sorry if folks don't like hearing that....it is indeed not something that Kossacks can be proud of.

      Image hosted by Photobucket.com

      Come on man, use your head for something more than a place to put the Reynolds Wrap.

      You think Bushco is competent enough to pull this all off and keep every last person involved in line and on script?  Puh-lease.  This administration needs help to wipe its ass after it's shat.

      Want to raise legimtimate questions about the 9/11 investigation, how it was designed and carefully stage-managed to whitewash a lot of things that were (and still are) very embarassing and very problematic for Bushco?  Great, go get 'em, I'm with you 1000%.

      But when people start flogging the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, that no planes hit the pentagon, that the CIA managed to secretly blow up their own building in the midst of the disaster, and all the people on those flights have somehow mysteriously "disappeared"....well, that's just showing ignorance and gullability.  It discredits anyone who's associated with such fantasies.

      If you want to have any credibility when you call bullshit on Bushco's real crimes and failings (which are many, and don't require any bizarre conspiracy), then you shouldn't be so quick to embrace the loonies - even if one out of their 200 charges turns out it has some grain of truth at its center.

      I don't believe in little space aliens regularly visiting and I don't believe that the corrupt and clueless Bush admin could pull off anything like this.  Sure, they're evil enough, but they're just too stupid and incompetent to actually pull it off - never mind keeping it all secret.

      Sorry.  This is major tinfoil.

    •  go up (none)
      It did air.

      "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" R.Piper

      by McGirk SF on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:04:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One of the things............. (4.00)
    That have always made me doubt the official story is the Bush reaction when, while sitting in the classroom, Card leans over and tells him a second plane has crashed into a building.

    What is missing from his reaction is a complete lack of surprise. No double take, no dropping jaw. No nothing. It's as if Card just told him his lunch was ready.

    Watch the video.

    Does it prove anything? No. But I have always found his complete and utter lack of surprise creepy.

    Oh yeah, I suspect this diary will bring on the wrath of Markos. He doesn't like this stuff.

    I think he feels it threatens his new-found juice in the Party...........
    •  Bush's reaction (none)
      No way Bush knew.  He held a good poker face in the classroom.  I doubt W understood the full scope of the attack at that point.

      The reason it is clear to me that Bush did not know is his speech that night.  Bush was visibly shaken.  It was a couple of days before he pulled it together.  

      •  I don't know... (none)
        he and Laura were interviewed THAT EVENING and said some really inappropriate stuff, laughed, etc. I am cursing myself for not knowing where that info is, though. I honestly read it about 1 year later, it made my blood boil.

        "Part of the facts is understanding we have a problem, and part of the facts is what you're going to do about it."-- G.W. Bush, April 15, 2005

        by flashlass on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:38:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I thought Bush (none)
        looked like a scared bunny in the Goat video. Not calm, not cool -- but like he was about to cry out for his Momma.
    •  good point (none)
      I would like to add...why didn't the secret service rush him out of the school?  They remained there for at least another 30 minutes!

      I don't know why this is always overlooked, but under that kind of 'surprise' attack, the Secret Service would have no idea whether or not the President was a target.  They would have picked him and carried him out of there. The fact that they didn't is very suspicious in my eyes.

      "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

      by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:50:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus he gave his newsconference (none)
        from the school as was his original plan. Why would they leave the president at a planned gathering when all this was going on? Doesnt make sense.

        "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

        by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:30:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is wrong. (none)
      What is missing from his reaction is a complete lack of surprise.

      A complete lack of surprise wasn't missing, it was definitely there.

      Sorry, it was bothering me........
      •  Can't be (none)
        I don't see any conspiracists involving George W.Bush in the operation.  You just wouldn't want someone like him in the loop.  He would be the weakest link, for sure.
      •  and why didn't SS rush him out of the school? (none)

        "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

        by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:03:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh yeah! That! (none)
          You know, that's probably the very first thing that raised a red flag for me.

          Think about it.   You're the president, you're doing a public photo-op, everybody knows where you are, it's been publicized, and you're surrounded by CHILDREN.

          The country comes under attack, we don't know to what extent, we only know that planes are coming out of the sky and blowing up buildings.  We don't know how many will eventually hit, we don't know how many have been taken over.

          The first thing you should do is get the fuck away from those kids!  

          Why don't you?  There's only two possible reasons:

          1.  You really don't give a damn about the kids.  But then again, why wouldn't you want to protect your own ass?    The next plane might crash right into you and blow you up!

          2.  You KNOW that the attacks are over and there aren't going to be anymore.

          If someone can think of a third possibility, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.  
          •  Oh (none)
            ok so Bush reacting outside of what YOU consider the normal reaction to the most abnormal situation this country has seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis is what sealed it for you?

            I guess this is the dog that didn't bark?...

            (Cross-posted in my pants)

            by Calishfornia on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:29:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  so he's an idiot incompetent, actually THAT (none)
              incompetent to the point where he would endanger an entire school of children?  

              We should have demanded his resignation right then and there.

              Do you really think that he and his people are THAT dumb?  

              •  See (none)
                this is what I'm talking about.

                When it is convenient, we portray Bush and his people as evil geniuses in order to make the pieces fit.  

                The other 99.5% of the time, though, we are more than content to say YES, IN FACT, HE IS THAT DUMB.

                (Cross-posted in my pants)

                by Calishfornia on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:46:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  How about this? (none)
            3. You freeze up.

            Many do, when confronted with a situation outside their ability to cope. We'd all like to imagine that the President of the United States wouldn't react that way -- but hey, that's what you get for picking a small man to do a big job.

            Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

            by Canadian Reader on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:07:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely (none)
          There is NO WAY that the SS would let him stay there if they did not know that he was not a target.  They had no way of knowing at that point how many planes had been hijacked.  One could have been coming right for that school.  They would have HAD to have assumed that would be the case, in order to not take chances.  The first order of business would be to get the President to a safe location IMMEDIATELY.  Not leave him to read about pet goats.  It's absolutely ridiculous, and yet it's just totally glossed over as if it's nothing.  Just like thousand other things on 9/11.
          •  Oh (none)
            another person privvy to the communication breakdown on that morning amongst the chain of command of the Secret Service and the rest of the government.

            Why didn't you just show me your credentials up front?

            (Cross-posted in my pants)

            by Calishfornia on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:35:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you're missing the point (none)
              yes communications were going nuts, but the point is when the President was told "a second plane has hit the WTC, American is under attack."  Why didn't the Secret Service get the President the hell out of there? They didn't leave the school for another 25 or 30 minutes.  Thats what the SS is trained to do, for all they knew the President was a target that day.

              "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

              by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:00:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Valid Question (none)
            but the Secret Service is responsible for protecting the president. The attacks were in NYC, terrorist planes were in the air (how many were unknown). Everyone knows what the president's plane looks like, so you get a (larger) military air cover ready. That takes time.

            The odds of a terrorist hijacker identifying a grade school (from 30,000 ft altitude) are pretty slim, so the protection needs to be from a ground assault. Security around the president is very, very tight (I have some anectdotal evidence related to several visits where I have been present, once when I was in the military, once at a campaign stop at my college, but I will not discuss them), so they probably felt secure, but wanted everyone to be ready for a change in the schedule to get the POTUS back to his aircraft. And because of the nature of the attacks, the logistics would have to be re-evaluated.

            So yeah, I understand the delay at the school while the logistics were taken care of.

            •  I would think though (none)
              that the chaos of that day was too much to assume that the only attacks would be from jetliners at 30000 feet. I would think the SS would take no chances.  Plus it was known days in advance that Bush would be at that school.  There is also an airport not to far from the school.  A smaller plane could have been hijacked from there and flown right towards the school at a much lower altitude.

              "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

              by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:46:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  When there's an attack going on, (none)
              the last place where the Secret Service would want the president to be would be a place where it had been publicly announced he was going to be.  Like that school in Florida.
          •  He stayed at the school for 30 minutes (none)
            after and used the phones ther and gave a news conference surrounded by kids and teachers.
             He is on audio twice saying he saw the first plane hit the buildings on a tv. Then went into the class where he was notified of the 2nd.
             

            "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

            by fool me once umm on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:33:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I think he froze (none)
        I think his lack of reaction is confusion mixed with the fear he always displays when he's put on the spot. I think he went into some sort of weird shock, although I honestly wouldn't know the reason. In any case, it's exactly the reaction you DON'T want in a president.

        "Part of the facts is understanding we have a problem, and part of the facts is what you're going to do about it."-- G.W. Bush, April 15, 2005

        by flashlass on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:41:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Did anyone just see the apalling terror (none)
    scare just on ABC "News." It was video of an American kid, with Aribic script at the bottom to make it really "scary."

    Now, maybe it's a real threat. I could be wrong. Been wrong before. This one just rang really, really hollow. It looked like high school video production and sounded like a Rove production.

    God help me if California gets nuked tomorrow but it did not look convincing to me.

    •  It's sorta like (none)
      Osama suddenly issuing a video right before the election, isn't it.  Two possibilities:
      (1) It's Rovian
      (2) Osama wants Bush to remain our President; Bush is after all destroying this country single-handedly.

      The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

      by TarheelDem on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:58:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The most objective critic of the official (none)
    9-11 story is Peter Lance.  His books, include 1000 years for Revenge and Cover-up.  I've heard him on Coast to Coast a couple times and he relies only on evidence not on speculation.

    There was a really good Coast to Coast show he was on with Alex 'tin-foil' Jones, David Ray Griffin, and one other dude.  They debated on the 9/11 story and theories, and Peter Lance is by far the most objective and the least tin-foily.  

    I haven't read his books yet, but I plan too, and I would recommend his work to anyone who wants to know more about the war on terrorism and the official and unofficial 9-11 story.  

    He was also on CSPAN, Book TV, for his 1000 years for Revenge.  

    In my opinion, he is not a crack-pot or tin-foiler.  He is one of the only truly objective investigators of 9/11 and seeker of truth through evidence.

    "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

    by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:47:21 PM PDT

  •  reopen9/11.org (none)
    Just briefly visited and bookmarked for later, but what caught my eye was that we were told that the air was safe to breath after 9/11; now we are being told that the water in NO is safe.
    •  Water is safe (none)
      The statement that the water in New Orleans is safe has been highly qualified by the state epidemiologist.
      (1) It is not safe to drink.
      (2) It is not safe to be in for unlimited periods of time.
      (3) Rescue workers who are working shifts should shower off at the end of a shift (yes, that is possible).
      (4) The principle danger is skin infections from bacteria that invades breaks in the skin.
      (5) The chemicals in the water would be dangerous had they not been diluted by so much water.  They can cause irritation that can be a site of infection.

      So, what does safe mean?  Only that it is safe to continue rescue and recovery operations as long as you take definite precautions.

      As for  NY, most public workers knew that the EPA statement was bullshit and wore filters or respirators.  Some of those did not provide sufficient protection.

      The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

      by TarheelDem on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:06:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow (none)
    ABC radio is Rush Limbaugh's affiliate.

    Its not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 03:55:01 PM PDT

  •  On CSpan ~2 weeks ago (none)
    They ran a long (3-4 hr) 911 Family and minority congressional hearing (the feisty Cynthia McKinney from Georgia  was one of the organizers asking questions and leading the hearing) on their reaction to the 911 Commission Report.  

    The hearings took place on 7/22/05 and were amazingly well researched and presented by both invited researchers, retired govmt intel/anti-terrorism specialists and family members of 911 victim dissatisfied with the 911 Commision and its report.

    It was excellent. They pointed out the shortcoming s and conflicts of interest in the Commision members and executive staff, and went through numerous flaws in the data and testimony collection, interpretation, lack of follow-up and conclusions.

    It may come on again, but I could not locate it just now when i did a quick search of the CSpan video archive

    •  DC Truth Convergence (none)

      - Part 1
      The DC Truth Convergence took place in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House on Saturday July 23rd, 2005. It was part of a larger 3 days event that brought together activists, artists, researchers, whistle blowers, alternative media, and others to expose the government's most lethal lies & the main stream media's complicity.
       snip--
      Part 2 as well
      http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php

      In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners. Albert Camus

      by hiley on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:52:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Was it a mis-statement (none)
    when Rummy remarked that the plane that went down in PA was shot down (Christmas trip to Iraq - 2004, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112)?
    •  Flight 93: Three debris fields spread over 8 miles (none)
      According to multiple initial reports

      It takes a very creative explanation to account for how an onboard struggle purportedly resulting in a loss of control and a high angle crash into  the ground could spread debris over an 8 mile distance.

      The debris spread is consistent however,  with a mid-air explosion or collision resulting in break-up of plane at high altitude.

  •  New Book - Big Wedding - 911 Whistleblowers (none)
    Has lots of interviews connecting lots of dots to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. (Robert Morgenthau - NY DA said 16 investagators to BCCI have died mysterously)

    General Mahmood Ahmad, head of Pakastan ISI wired Mohamed Atta $100K on 9/10/01 (Times of India and French Press reported) Ahmed was with Bob Graham and Porter Gross on morning of 911.

    Graham acknowledged on live TV that Randy Glass (FBI/ATF Informant)warned him in advance that planes were going to be flown into the Trade Center.

    Wally Hilliard owner of Huffman Aviation (Where Atta trained) and DEA agent were busted with 43 pounds of Afgan heroin. Huffman co-owner DuBain owner Silverado Resort in Napa hosted Ollie North, and G H Bush meetings.

    If you never know truth, then you never know love.
    Where is the love? -- Black Eyed Peas

    by Grzbo on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:02:44 PM PDT

    •  SO, this may be a useful diary? (none)
      Looks like it to me. When is the book coming out?

      "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

      by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:06:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I forgot about Randy Glass (none)
      He's another important part of the 9/11 story

      "Its when murder is justice that martyrs are made..." Lamb of God

      by Darth Codis on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:09:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  a bit late, perhaps? (none)
      General Mahmood Ahmad, head of Pakastan ISI wired Mohamed Atta $100K on 9/10/01 (Times of India and French Press reported)

      explain what would Atta do with the money, exactly....

      I believe that somebody had foreknowledge of the plot, but that it was originated and instigated by al-Zawahiri etcetera (OBL is the political figurehead).

    •  911 Questions (none)
      Will continue to erode Bushco - All I know there are so many inconsistancies and a continued investigation will shine light where the media has been afraid to go.

      About two week ago I visited the School Book Depository Museuem in Dallas. All leading scholars, the public, and evidence in the Museum now supports that the Warren Commission was wrong. Let's not have to wait 40 years for that to be the case on the 911 commission.

      If you never know truth, then you never know love.
      Where is the love? -- Black Eyed Peas

      by Grzbo on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:22:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bank of Credit and Commerce International (none)
      "Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.
      All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed."
       http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

      Whenever the Kerry supporters showed up at my house, I asked them why he wasn't going for the throat and drawing blood with this in the political arena if he really wanted to be president. None of them knew what I was talking about. Seemed to me to be the kind of prosecution to be proud of.

         "By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge."

      Why were they keeping this low-key? There's something wrong with the picture, that this was not the winning card in the debates.
      Just one of the reasons I couldn't vote for him.

      ...learn something new every day...

      by nhwriter on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:35:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  5 out of 9 (3.00)
    ding-dongs on the weenie meter.

    Although this is not a GBCW diary, it does have elements of a swan song: pithy dismissals of critics, opinion substituted for fact and trails and trails of "well you can't disprove my nutty theory, so it must be true!" And the crowning jewel is the overriding sense one walks away with that the diarist isn't long for this world (if he was ever a part of it at all.)

    I like it. I'd go see it again, if tickets were half-price. I want to take the subject seriously, and obviously that's what the diarist wants as well, however the plot -- originally slated for 90 minutes, barely covers 30. Also, the repetition wearies the audience at points, and lends the thread to tangential downward spirals. Finally, one wanders out of the blog remembering exactly why we first dropped out of "speculative philosophy" sophomore year...

    -------
    It ain't braggin' if you really done it. -- Dizzy Dean

    by PBJ Diddy on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:11:52 PM PDT

  •  this is fake (none)
    there is no such radio show on.  is this abc radio in australia or something?
  •  Link to Excellent Videos on the Subject (none)
    Is discussion of complicity on the part of the US Government in the events of 9/11 anathema on Daily Kos?

    I highly recommend the excellent collection of downloadable videos at 911busters.com

  •  To foil or not to foil (none)
    People are not calling consiracy with the hurricane ("It was HAARP.") You can tell from gov. reaction. Ie: is FEMA/FBI there within five minutes, are video tapes confiscated, do black boxes dissapear, is there moral indignation at the very thought of an investigation. Are there practice drills for sutch a scenerio going on at the same time a real one hits.
    I think it was controlled demolition, and I'm sceptical about what happend to the pentagon, but there's no smoking gun for those so I focus on the other stuff. Don't want to get sidetracked into possibilities ie: ballistics with JFK. Sure its interesting but it's not anything you can take to a judge for an arrest warrent.

    "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" R.Piper

    by McGirk SF on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:16:16 PM PDT

  •  Building 7. (none)
    Why would anyone bother bringing down WTC 7?  Seriously, it's no more than a sentence in the 9/11 story as it's commonly told.  It made no great impact on the national psyche.  So why the big focus on that in the conspiracy theories?

    That the Bush admin ignored warnings, figured that whatever was coming wouldn't be too big to handle, were lazy, whatever - that I buy.  I think they had reason to know something was coming and for whatever reason they ignored it.  I think Katrina shows that incompetence was probably more a part of it than we'd been giving them credit for.  But I don't for a second buy that it was a conspiracy in the sense of the bush admin planning it or aiding and abetting.

    •  well, that's exactly the point (none)
      Building 7 has been utterly ignored, and it was almost ignored that day.

      That's the entire point.

      Building 7 housed offices of the CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service, as well as Giuliani's own emergency bunker.  

      Building 7 was brought down after the twin towers fell because at that point almost nobody would even notice.

      The steel was whisked away to China and melted down before anybody could even look at it.   GPS markers were put on the steel to make sure it went where it was supposed to go.

      In short, Building 7 had all the evidence.  

    •  For Profit - Insurance Group Questioning Motive (none)
      In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

      (PRWEB) May 2, 2005 -- Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence.

      The Allianz Group is incorporated in Germany and has approximately 570,000 shareholders. Under German Stock Companies law, publicly held companies are required to publish shareholder proposals that meet certain criteria.

      If you never know truth, then you never know love.
      Where is the love? -- Black Eyed Peas

      by Grzbo on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:34:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What was in building seven (none)
      A bunch of bonds that matured on 9/12, and all the confiscated documents from Aurther Anderson and Enron. It will be tough to prosecute Kenny boy without 'em.
      Why would they bring them from Texas and store them there?

      "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" R.Piper

      by McGirk SF on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:47:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This doesn't help us (4.00)
    9/11 was a gross failure of the Bush administration to protect the American people. They didn't go after Osama. They ignored the intelligence about Osama wanting to attack in the US, and about highjackings. They ignored the warnings from the FBI about the flight schools. When the attacks happened, they were caught with their pants down. The 9/11 commission played along with the Bush administration because they are Washington insiders and they didn't want to rock the boat. The evidence on this is consistent and very clear. On the subject of 9/11, Bush and his cronies screwed up big time. They are definitely guilty of gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.

    If there is any connection between Bush's conspiring and 9/11, it's in his attempts to take credit for the response, and to position himself as the guy we need to save us from the menace he didn't care about and utterly failed to stop. That of course is a great steaming pile of propaganda. The 9/11 commission definitely deserves some blame for not going after the truth of Bush's incompetence and cowardice. However, that's pretty small potatoes as a conspiracy, and it's after the fact.

    If you want to go after a Bush conspiracy, try the Iraq war. They wanted a war, they secretly planned it, and they misled the American people into supporting it. That's a textbook conspiracy. If that's not enough, look at the election frauds, the secret meetings with Enron, and the way they pushed through the tax cuts to benefit their buddies. It sure looks like there was a lot of secrecy, it doesn't benefit the country, and laws were broken. That's conspiracy.

    We need to challenge the credibility of Bush and the right-wing propaganda about 9/11. Any conspiracy theory that goes beyond what really happened on 9/11 will only hurt us. Remember, we're the reality based community.

    "Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot. Just don't give me the same idiot."

    by TomB on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:24:48 PM PDT

    •  You missed the point (none)
      Because the official version is not what really happened, NOT reality based. Its Bushco's own conspiracy theory. Look at some of the links listed on this thread.

      "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

      by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:31:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope (none)
        I've looked at those links. The Reopen 911 site is completely and utterly loony. They don't understand the physics of what happened to the buildings, so it must be a conspiracy. All it proves is they are stupid. The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 gets basic facts about Bush wrong. Stupid again. The 9/11 Citizens Watch site looks legit, but then they're not pushing conspiracy theories on their front page. Basically, the conspiracy theories about 9/11 are not even remotely credible. I know the Bush administration has proven that it can't be trusted, and I am not going to reject any theories out of hand, but these conspiracy theories about 9/11 are not about the truth, and they are not helping us get to the truth.

        "Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot. Just don't give me the same idiot."

        by TomB on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:19:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Upon further review (none)
        Have you considered the possibility that the 9/11 conspiracy theories were actually planted by Rove psy-ops in order to discredit all criticism of Bush's performance? Think about it.

        "Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot. Just don't give me the same idiot."

        by TomB on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:25:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  well said nt (none)

      "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

      by marjo on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:34:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  TomB, what a guy! (none)
      The only "conspiracy" theory of substance here is the whitewash of the lead-up to 9/11, the follow-up, and the further "factual cleansing" in the post-mortem by the phony commission. Fuck-ups indeed...These assholes weren't ballsy enough to stage a terrorist event to gain control of the country. But they are still smart enough to work overtime to cover their pathetic culos. (look it up).  They did a magnificent job of damage control and the JoeDickhead-public bought it. We are facilitators to these guys. They exploited, to the fullest, our own lack of interest into possible precursors to the attack.

      That being said, with the little fellas poll numbers doing a "go south", I think it reasonable to expect something more than an orange alert to reacquiant us all with his bravery and resolve.

      Fuck the asshole, fuck his cabinet, fuck his pals, and a pox on his family.

      Best to all.

  •  HELP (none)
    I can't find it on Turner Cable in NYC.  What channel...please?

    Thanks!

  •  7 WTC (4.00)
    I don't have any real opinion on this... I have a hard time believing it was an "inside job," but I could certainly believe that the 9/11 Comission Report wasn't as forthcoming as it could have been.  

    Anyway, on 9/11 I worked at the Federal Reserve building, about 2 blocks from the WTC site.  The security people were completely unprepared -- it was pretty shocking, actually, after that Die Hard movie about terrorism at the NY Fed.  They didn't seem to have any contingency plans and they kept us all in the building.  Then when the first building collapsed, a group of us that had been trying to get out got trapped in the lobby in the dust cloud and couldn't get into the basement because the door was locked.  I don't know what you'd expect if it were "an inside job," but the Fed security people certainly had no idea anything was on the horizon.

    The rest of the day was kind of a blur for me, but I remember that the collapse of 7 WTC was expected ... I think the TV news reported that it looked like it was going to go down, and my brother had enough advance warning to go watch it come down.  That would lead me to believe it was a collapse, not a planned demolition, as I don't think a demolition would show visible signs (swaying, etc) of imminent collapse.

    •  are transcripts available? (none)
      Does anyone know if it's possible to see video of the news coverage from 9/11 (or read the transcripts)?

      It would be really interesting to watch ... i remember all sort of rumors being reported on the news that day (plane going toward the State Office building in Harlem, bombs brought down WTC1 and WTC2, etc).  It would be gut-wrenching to relive, but very interesting to re-evaluate it all.

  •  A cover-up to cover incompetence (none)
    as in political CYA in the Commission -- that's different than the gov't intentionally planning 9/11 .  They didn't create the hurricane, but their incompetence and political maneuvering is shocking all on its own.  9/11 is no different.  Incompetence and political maneuvering to get us into Iraq.  Forged documents, I wouldn't put past the neocons.  But I have looked at the so-called 9/11 conspiracty sites and frankly they insult my intelligence.

    "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

    by marjo on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:38:51 PM PDT

    •  Flight 93 (none)
      The crash pattern has never fit the story. I visited the site. The engine landed a mile away. The black box has never been released. Residents found paper debre on a pond 8 miles away. Cell phones don't work at that height or else you would be hearing rings on every flight - how often do you remember to turn off your cell phone. Many PA witnessess described a low flying white jet in the area.

      If you never know truth, then you never know love.
      Where is the love? -- Black Eyed Peas

      by Grzbo on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:54:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It probably was shot down. (none)
        And who could really fault that decision, given what else had just happened?

        But when the facts started to emerge about what had been going on at the same time inside the plane, the decision was pretty clearly made to let the passengers keep the credit. They really had been heroic... let people go on believing that the desperate passenger assault on the hijackers had succeeded, at least to the extent of saving lives at the hijackers' intended target, though tragically losing their own.

        It was a story people wanted to believe. Noble self-sacrifice achieves its end. Tears are shed.

        Nobody wanted to think about the possibility that the sequence might have been that the passengers had already overwhelmed the hijackers, regaining control of the aircraft -- and then, before the new status could be communicated, the plane was shot down.

        We will never know exactly what happened inside that plane after "Let's roll." Did the hijackers beat back the attack from the passengers? Was the fight still in progress? No way to know whether the missile that shot down the plane saved the White House, or whether it was a cruel proof that God is an iron.

        If there's a coverup about this plane, I think it would be more in the spirit of, Let's leave well enough alone.

        Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

        by Canadian Reader on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:38:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  http://reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_part_1.wmv (2.20)



    Everyone, please watch this documentary first: http://reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_part_1.wmv

    before you just dismiss out of hand what Griffen is saying (and he is by no means alone).

    Just watch it.
    Do it.

    More proof:  

    Mere fire did not do this!

    The WTC buildings collapsed at the free fall speed of gravity, 8.4 seconds (10 floors per second). To collapse at "Free fall" speed means that the falling building pieces had to crush concrete, shear steel bolts, and brake welds and fall just as fast as a rock dropped off the side of the building that hit nothing but air. Impossible without explosives! Each floor hit would have significantly slowed the fall!

    The South Tower (Building #2) fell after 1 hour; the North Tower (Building #1) fell after 2 hours.The Meridian Plaza burned fiercely for 19 hours and never collapsed. The Madrid fire in 2005 burnt for 24 hours looking like a torch and never collapsed.


    •  Bogus (4.00)
      The WTC towers were not steel frame construction, such as the Hotel Windsor and almost every other multi-story building on the planet.

      The towers were a special design that relied on rigid edges to hold the structural shape, with the concrete floors being suspended by the edges. Once the failure of one of the corners occured the entire tower was compromised and the floors would fall on top of each other. As each floor slammed into the one below, the weight stress increased, causing a quicker failure. The Journal of Minerals, Metals and Materials published an examination of the engineering.

      GOP: Party before Country
      Puppethead

      by puppethead on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:13:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What I like to think (4.00)
    is the difference between us, the "reality-based community", and the fascist-like right-wingers is our tolerance of different views.  However different.  Without weighing in this time with my own opinions about this or other issues of controversy on this site like stolen elections, I just want to say that it disturbs me when these different views make people so angry that they think the people who express them should be banned.  
    •  Thats whats annoying about this site (none)
      The first couple of comments were made on this diary, I was one of the first 6 or 8, and Jonathon immediately comments we should be banned. Pretty obnoxious, and it happens alot, at least in the couple months I have been reading.

      "Brownie, yer doin' a heckuva job...

      by Blakbelt on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:52:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Read and Learn (none)
    Put this in your pipe and smoke it:

    The Project for the New American Century

  •  What's makes some conspiracy theories (4.00)
    difficult for me to get a grasp, is, if they're so good at big conspiracies, why didn't they plant the WMD in Iraq?  That would have seemed to have been the easiest of them all, but apparently it didn't happen.  

    That's what makes me think they probably aren't actually planning the bad stuff to happen.

    •  good point (none)
      maybe they figured they didn't want to press their luck?

      Seriously though, i am not a conspiracy nut--but the idea on here that "the left" are the only ones that see a conspiracy under every rock aren't paying attention.

      The Clinton administration faced very serious conspiracy-nut accusations that top-level right-wing publications and pundits took very seriously. I, for one, don't think we ought to mirror these crazies.  But the left doesn't have any monopoly.

      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho Marx

      by markymarx on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:09:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq (none)
      A great question!, Why, indeed?  They weren't up to it, because they  were at least shrewd enough to know that some inquisitive, "foreigner" news person with contacts would catch them. The fun and relatively easy control scenario begins at home, with an indifferent populace. They exploit people here because so many of us would believe whatever the TV or radio gives us. I mean, look a that parasitic, drug-torpored maggot, Rush.. He has profited mightily from our laziness.
      •  Why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq? (none)
        Because they didn't HAVE to.  The facts have been rolling off Bush's back like water on a duck.  If he strangled a black child on national TV, it would be spun as self defense and the media would comply.
        And The Weekly Standard would say that he'd not gone far enough.
        And the polls would maybe go down to 36%, but probably not.
    •  but you have to admit (none)
      they are pretty good at spinning and hiding and controlling message and  covering up shit after the fact, and they generally can count on the US media bosses to pitch in and help them with 'hiding the bodies'.
    •  They were going too (none)
      but the memo's got mixed up and the sent the passengers from flight 77 to Iraq and the WMD's to Gitmo.

      "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by sgilman on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:00:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I heard one or two reports (none)
      that after Baghdad fell, our guys were caught trying to plant some WMD's...Sure wish I could remember where.
  •  For anyone who's interested (4.00)
    I've diaried my response to this diary and its ensuing discussion here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/11/194319/734

    And I think this might be the last thing I will have to say about 9-11 theories here on Kos.

    Like music? Check out my band: http://www.systemnoisenyc.com

    by lucid on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:54:30 PM PDT

  •  Big old dud (none)
    There are compelling bits of evidence calling into question the "official" version of events.  I think it's more likely to be CYA activity than CIA activity.  

    I was interested in hearing this program.  But it has proven too hard to find.  Anyone have any better luck?

  •  Now, I try to avoid a tin-foil hat (none)
    I believe Oswald acted alone. I never attribute to conspiracy what can be easily attributed to incompetence.

    Two things as they pertain to both JFK and 9-11.
    First, there is the need to feel this great conspiracy, that Oswald had to have help. That a few men with boxcutters could not have pulled this off without help. The bigger the disaster requires the bigger conspiracy. Perhaps our brains are wired this way.

    The second pertains to bureaucracy. In both JFK and 9-11 (and even Hurricane Katrina), there was massive incompetence. There was (and will be) an effort to cover up one's mistakes. Couple this with investigative commissions determined to avoid certain outcomes and you have a conspiracy dream team.

    The Warren Commission wanted to avoid any mention of possible cuban conspiracy (the cuban missile crisis fresh in their minds and how close we came to WWIII). The CIA, Secret Service and FBI shredded files and gave misleading testimony to cover up their incompetence, feeding the conspiracy theories.

    The 9-11 commission (at least the republican members) was determined to avoid showing how the administration totally dropped the ball, focusing on the bureaucrcy and promising to wait until after the 2004 election before investigating the administration, then never following through.

    Picture Condi Rice's statement that there was no credible evidence in the PDB stating "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in USA." Is the administration really that incompetent or are their nefarious reasons? The mind boggles at the two bad choices.

    It is difficult to believe these guys, in charge of the most powerful country in the world, are that incompetent, so therefore, conspiracy theories take root. Katrina, however, is showing just how incompetent they really are. Yet the conspiracy theories are starting to pop up there also.

    •  sad (none)
      these conspiracy theories--what a complete waste of time!  For, if the conspirators are that powerful, we don't stand much of chance anyway.  Instead, pay attention to the disaster that befronts you, go out into the sunshine and protest or start preparing a strategy to win the next election.  
    •  what? (none)
      Are you for real?  The bullets fired at JFK could not have possibly come from a single rifle, according to all known laws of physics.  

      Why do think Woody Allen joked that the Warren Commission Report was the best work of fiction he had ever read?

      Has it really come this?  Have you all had your minds reprogrammed?  

      May all beings be free from fear.

      by shakti on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 08:01:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WOW (4.00)
    And I thought the conspiracy thing had disappeared.

    I have seen statements such as - Jet fuel burns at X degrees and steel melts at X+ degrees, so the fires did not cause the towers to collapse, so it must have been explosives the bad guys planted or perhaps that group of space aliens that don't like us much.

    Some time ago I watched a program on TV (The Discovery Channel if I remember correctly).

    There was a metallurgist at the site they took the structural steel to and he went through the design considerations, construction of the towers etc.

    He showed the brackets that attached the floors to the main structure, and explained how they failed.

    To keep it a bit simple, the design was robust enough to not fail during a normal structure fire.
              ---BUT---
    The problem  was, no-one envisioned a jet liner with tons of fuel on board crashing into the buildings.

    All of the main structure and supporting parts were sprayed with thermal insulation that would keep the steel from getting hot enough to reach the point of failure if there was a normal-type fire on one or more floors.

    But what happened was the aircraft crashed into the building and the ensuing explosion stripped the insulation from the steel.

    The amount of time between the aircraft hitting and the collapse was how long it took the fire to heat the structure to the point of failure.(not the melting point of steel,--- big difference).

    Once one floor came crashing down on the one below it and drove it down, ---well I guess you could say all hell broke loose and the process was unstoppable.

    There is enough information out there to put together to arrive at a rational explanation of what happened without invoking evil characters or bug eyed monsters.

    As I said above, this is a quick and dirty synopsis of what happened. If you want to get a complete understanding of what happened,--DO some research. The information is out there.

    •  sdf (none)
      There is enough information out there to put together to arrive at a rational explanation of what happened without invoking evil characters or bug eyed monsters.

      Why is it alright for the government to invoke evil characters (Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden), but not anyone who doesn't agree with the concensus opinion of what happened?

      You're not providing much information, just a brief description in laymans terms of what you saw on some TV program, along with the obligatory "go do some research". Care to elaborate?

    •  One small problem (none)
      While we're getting facts straight around here.

      The designers did in fact envision a plane—a 707, the largest jet at the time—crashing into the towers, and they did engineer the building to withstand the impact.

      The planes that hit were, if anything, smaller than 707s, with smaller fuel capacities.

      Now, it's possible that the architects overlooked something really basic in the course of engineering the building, or it's possible that there was a "perfect storm" in both cases. But the simple fact that fuels a lot of the theorizing is that the towers were in fact built to withstand this exact scenario, and they failed to.

      •  Not a problem, they did survive the impact (none)
        ...both buildings survived the impact amazingly well.

        They did not survive the ensuing fire, however. The original engineering studies assumed that the fire suppression systems would work and/or neglected the extremely effective firestarting capability of an airliner nearly full of fuel (instead of being relatively low on fuel and lost in the fog prior to a landing at LaGuardia).

        -Jay-

  •  Numbers, please (4.00)
    As Lord Kelvin said:
    I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.

    You can get some numbers on the WTC collapse through this link.

    Another informative interview with Prof. Eagar is at this link.

    For an excellent site which debunks all the myths, including the WTC 7 "demolition" myth, you can visit this link.

    The children of the poor perish in their beds, while the blastocysts of the wealthy are preserved for all eternity

    by CarbonFiberBoy on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:23:29 PM PDT

  •  From Freespeechtv (none)
    Keynote: David Ray Griffin

    "Truth and Politics." Author David Ray Griffin presents information from his new book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

    http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/contentviewer.php?content_id=1091
    Loose Change
    http://question911.com/links.php
    Pentagon Strike
    http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm
    MEMRI TV  
    URL: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=844.#  

    In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners. Albert Camus

    by hiley on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:35:08 PM PDT

  •  Disinformation Campaign (4.00)
    If there's any sort of conspiracy, it's Republicans pushing this Griffin guy to put this theory out and try to make Bush critics look wacky.

    The idea that people believe a fuel-heavy plane moving at hundreds of miles an hour wouldn't do enough damage to bring down the top half of a building is simply mind-boggling to me. Apart from the fire, there's a huge amount of kinetic energy involved.

    I've watched a controlled demolition of a much smaller building -- just a couple hundred feet tall and only a half-block in size -- from a few blocks away. It's like a small earthquake. The portions of the WTC towers above the impact sites were far larger in volume than the building I watched go down.

    What's really surprising to me is that there wasn't more damage to surrounding buildings when the towers fell, not that nearby structures like WTC7 fell hours later.  I don't know if NYC's building codes include earthquake-proofing, but anything on or close to the towers almost certainly got shaken.

    What's odd to me is that the repoen911.org people make claims like "Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the
    mass of the buildings hit the ground" and "Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning of the collapse of the South Tower..." (p10 of http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf). That's certainly not the conclusion on the Columbia page with the seismic traces (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html).

    As for claims that the WTC towers were too strong to fall because they got hit by something like a plane, I'd like to point to the roof of the Superdome, which was rated to withstand winds of 200mph.

    Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

    by darrelplant on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:43:19 PM PDT

    •  I agree that (none)
      Griffen's "planned demolition" talk very effectively 'demolishes" (by association)  the credibility of the rest of the very reasonable questions and valid inconsistencies he raises.
    •  A plane did fly into the Empire State Bldg (none)
      And it didn't fall down.  Mind-boggling, but true.

      It was a smaller plane, but it was also a commercial airliner, not a passenger plane.

      Sorry I don't have the specifics at the moment, no time to look them up.

      •  It was a military plane (none)
        The plane was flying slower and had far less fuel than a transcontinental flight would have. It was also much smaller.
      •  B25 (none)
        Don't have the time to look up facts that would break your little tin-foil theory?

        An Army B25 hit the Empire State in 1945 in morning fog. Duh.

        A B25 was about 53' long, with a wingspan of 68', a max takeoff weight of 42,000 lbs. and a max speed of 275mph, which it wasn't likely to be doing as it approached Manhattan in the fog. There are some famous pictures of the plane's tail sticking out of the building.

        The Boeing 757 comes in several varieties -- I'm not sure which ones hit the WTC towers -- but the short version is 155' long, all have a wingspan of 125', the small ones have a max takeoff weight of 255,000 lbs., and they have a max speed of 540mph.

        Comparing a plane roughly 1/5 or 1/6 the weight hitting a building with a solid external structure and small windows at a relatively slow speed to a 757 hitting a building with a lot of window space is pointless and flown by someone intent on doing as much damage as possible is just plain stupid.

        No wonder you believe the conspiracy theorists.

        Frankly, I put this stuff in the same category as the people who lump all Muslims together as "towelheads." The 9/11 attacks were an amazingly well-orchestrated plan to exploit a potentially once-in-a-lifetime gaping hole in security. Incredibly cheap to execute. They knew that once they'd done it, there might not be a chance to do it again (although after New Orleans showed what a bunch of nincompoops are running DHS, they might be "emboldened" to try it again). But a lot of people can't comprehend the possibility that some Arab guys managed to pull it off. For whatever reason, they have to think it's some sort of scheme that only they've been able to connect the dots to. It's sort of like watching the right draw lines between the ACLU and the communists/fascists/Islamo-fascists/communo-fascists/whatever: "They're funding a group promoting American values to destroy America!"

        If there'd been a successful conspiracy by the administration of any kind on 9/11, they'd have fixed up Saddam for it. They've tried for four years to take advantage of 9/11 to do that. But they've failed. That's the truth about it. They couldn't even get their fix-up job together.

        Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

        by darrelplant on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 10:09:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What I meant to challenge (none)
          was the remark in the post I was commenting on, that no building would remain standing if a large plane flew into it.

          A large plane flew into the Empire State Building, and it remained standing.

          As for theories as to what really happened on 9/11:
            I'm still looking at all the evidence I can find, and
          Asking Questions.

          •  Challenge (none)
            What you were responding to was this statement in my post:

            The idea that people believe a fuel-heavy plane moving at hundreds of miles an hour wouldn't do enough damage to bring down the top half of a building is simply mind-boggling to me.

            Because you didn't know what you were talking about, you didn't know that the B25 was a much smaller plane than a 757. You didn't know that the WTC and the Empire State used vastly different types of construction. You didn't know that the planes that hit the WTC towers were moving at "hundreds" of miles an hour and that the B25 was moving slowly (for a plane) in fog. You didn't know that the B25 was looking for its landing site and wasn't full of fuel like the 757s or that the 757s carried much more fuel than the B25.

            Yet you felt that something vague you'd once heard about a plane hitting the Empire State was some sort of validation of your statement. You're operating entirely on faith, without any facts, ignorant of reality. Now do you understand why people find the conspiracy theories not to be credible?

            Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

            by darrelplant on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 09:28:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I tried to connect to the Griffin program, (none)
    but only got the ongoing ceremony coverage.  What happened?  Was it cancelled?  Was it archived?  Anyone have any links to the actual program?

    "How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right." Black Hawk

    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:56:07 PM PDT

  •  Aired on 2 Affiliates (none)
    and available to 3000 others?  I seriously doubt I will hear it in Atlanta.  I checked the Affiliates listing, and the ABC affliliates here are country music stations.

    Also, I find it hard to believe that the Flagship 770 WABC in New York will air it.

    That's Sean Hanity's home station, isn't it?

  •  Why did Bush look so panicked? (none)
    If Bush and company knew it was coming, why did Bush act so bewildered and scared?  If he knew it was coming, why didn't he jump out of his seat with a prepared answer and then get back to Washington and play like he's President Codpiece?

    I have also heard that the buildings near the world trade centers had to be rigged with demolition explosives after the first attemp to blow them up in '93, so that if they were attacked and there was a chance of them falling over then they could be demolished professionally so they would cause less damage.

  •  Conspiracy Theory (3.25)
    What happens when paranoid lay people pretend to be experts in order to support an alternative version of reality.

    Diaries like this follow the same logic as Creationist arguments: Look! This tiny detail isn't a textbook case of what should happen in another scenario! Look, there's a lack of total documentation, everything that we don't know must be a mysterious cover-up! Scientists/BushCo are behind the mass brainwashing of the American public! WE must make our alternative version of history poart of the mainstream despite it's complete lack of credibility! Your theory fails to account for detail x, therefore it was creation/BushCo coverup!

    This diary is demeaning to dKos, and I'm terrified that it made the reccomended list.

    Diaries like this one are the reason I'm sometimes tenative appointing pointing friends and family at this site. Because for all the great discussion and analysis, there are patches of pure unadulterated stupid like this that seep through, and it's worse (in a lot of ways) than watching Fox News.

    This diary is not reality-based. It is unfounded-hysterical-speculation based. Fighting unreasonable hysterical stupidity is among the chief reasons I'm a democrat.

    Troll rate me and destroy the credibility of this site. I'm gonna go post my theory that Bush is a robot sent from the future to fight the demon-cyborgs of New Jersey.

    The world's address
    a place that's worn
    a sad pun that reflects a sadder mess
    In case you haven't already guessed:
    The world's a dress.

    by Jaiwithani on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:20:17 PM PDT

    •  conspiracy what? (none)
      Diaries like this should be purged from dkos and never be spoken of again. How DARE they assault us with their 'space aliens flew ufos into the wtc' conspiracy theories! Wait, what? Thats not what they're saying? Well, their crazy "vast conspiracy with thousands of people in on it" shit ain't gonna fly here. Hmm, they're not saying that either? Hey, who are they to ask questions anyway? Oh, citizens of the United States? But don't they know the government loves us, and would never do us harm?
  •  Do you believe what you believe? (none)
    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."-Herbert Spencer
    •  But if.......... (none)
      The receipient of said contempt consistantly and relentlessly prevents any true investigation in the first place, isn't the contempt justified?
    •  Well (none)
      I think that every resident of Eastern Austrailia is actually a giant mutant cyborg mouse sent here to destroy all humanity. Think about it - Austrailia was involved in the Iraq war, Austrailia is full of weird animlas found nowhere else on Earth, and there are all those damn Outback Steakhouses serving as fronts for the the Great Austrailian Conspiracy. We must devote all our resources to investigating these claims at once.

      What? You're opposed? You close-minded fool, you'll kill us all!

      Baseless conspiracy overshadows and taints actual, reality-based concerns about what happened, notably government failures to prevent and respond to the attack.

      I can't believe we're still fighting conspiracy theories four years later. It's the Bush Administration's fault as much as anybody, crippling investigations to cover their own incompetence, but diaries and sentiments like this conspiracy diary work to undermine all efforts to get actual questions answered. If a group of people demand all the facts, that's legitimate. If the same people demand to know if and to what extent martians were involved, they are dismissed for being paranoid idiots.

      That's what's going on here. Legitimate questions are geting shackled to "did-martians-do-it" questions, sinking everything.

      The world's address
      a place that's worn
      a sad pun that reflects a sadder mess
      In case you haven't already guessed:
      The world's a dress.

      by Jaiwithani on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:56:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't find it in my program line up (none)
    When did you say? It's not in our tv listings at all.
  •  Beyond Incompetence (3.66)
    Look at the "faulty" intelligence about 911,Iraq, leading up to justifying something they planned to do anyway. Look at the complete absence of culpability regarding Abu Ghraib. And now look at New Orleans. We have stories about water and food being deliberately turned away, survivors being deliberately rounded up, communications (at least in Jefferson Parrish) being deliberately cut... and yet we are still playing that cold comfort game of imagining that well-orchestrated events are just a series of "oopsies"!

    Ronald Reagan (all Alzheimer's jokes aside) managed to skip some pretty hefty criminal charges by playing "asleep at the wheel". Some arms for hostages, a wry chuckle from the populace and then it's back to business. The comforting thought that none of this is malicious is what keeps these guys in business.

    But apart from covering their asses, how does it benefit them to appear to be a bunch of well-meaning, but bumbling idiots? Let's think about this a moment. Aren't people now DEMANDING a more comprehensive and self-contained FEMA? Aren't they appalled at the "bureaucracy" that cost all these lives? Why, none of this would have happened if FEMA had the authority to be a self-contained police force that didn't have to wait for authorization from a higher power (They are, and they don't). But now they have a mandate from the masses to be jack-booted thugs. People are throwing themselves on the ground and BEGGING that FEMA come in swiftly, efficiently, and with no "bureaucratic" oversight (and with that, no accountability). A newer, harder, more militaristic FEMA that shoots first and asks for permission later would never have let New Orleans flounder for days. And a newer, harder, more militaristic FEMA is precisely what we are demanding and will get... and with a legitimacy that can only be bought for the price of a few thousand ordinary lives.

    A good fisherman does not jam a hook down a fish's mouth. A good fisherman makes that fish believe that is where he wants that hook to be.

    Am I giving the administration too much credit for cleverness? Sure, we sleep easier at night thinking that they are a bunch of incompetents. But I ask you, for the past five years, have they stopped inflating their own bank accounts? Have they been held responsible for one single atrocity or outrage that has been perpetrated at their behest? So who are the real incompetents here: BushCo or us "clever" commentators who keep letting them get away with it over and over and over...?

    Even if we are using terms like "SNAFU" and "incompetence" ironically or euphemistically, this represents a god damned "get-out-of-jail-free" card to the administration. And I'm getting damned fed up with the debate over whether thousands of human beings have died and more are crippled and impoverished and suffering because of evil intent or benign neglect by these guys.

    I'm damned fed up with the self-satisfaction involved in pretending we are cleverer than they are when, for all their touted fuck-uppery, they are getting richer and their agenda proceeds apace. The ONLY issue in five years that I can think of that they haven't bullied through during a congressional recess while we are smugly gabbing endlessly about how "incompetent" they are is that they have had to put the evisceration of Social Security on a back burner for the time being.

    For the final time, they see the same things we do... but they are acting on things while we are simply bitching about them. Didn't they know about the coming housing crisis and peak oil? Sure, and they made it practically impossible for the average citizen to declare bankruptcy. Didn't they know about the impending damage that a major hurricane would do to New Orleans? Didn't they know about using planes to hit buildings, Sure, and they are using it now to turn FEMA into the Gestapo they've always wanted them to be. Didn't they know about... well, you get the goddamned point. Just because they are inhuman and do not make compassionate decisions doesn't mean they aren't acting proactively. And how god damned smart does it make us being played like fiddles and talking about how stupid they are?

    Look, we can argue about criminal intent or benign neglect and keep going in circles about it. Bottom line is that people... many, many people in this country and the world over, are dead or suffering because of what this administration does and NOBODY IS BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE! It doesn't matter whether they are kindhearted country bumpkins or reptiles from the Planet Neocon in disguise when you have lost your life or everything you own to these guys! Calling them stupid is wasting our time and absolving them of any responsibility. ENOUGH!

    •  Bravo (3.00)
      Man, you are telling it like it is. We cannot be fools for these out-to-lunch, asleep-at-the-wheel bumbling-idiots explanations. Were there war games enacted the morning of 9/11? Yes. Did any of the war games involve flying airplanes into buildings? Yes. Was Dick Cheney involved in the operations? Yes. Did Buildling #7 collapse? Yes. Was it hit by a plane? No. Have people died unnecessarily in Iraq? Yes. Have people died unnecessarily in Katrina? Yes. Did people die due to complicity of the US Government in 9/11? We don't know. Was evidence whisked away? Yes. Was an investigation thwarted? Yes. Deceit and duplicity have been the norm for this administration from the get-go. This group has bankrupted us and recklessly endangered our citizens. If they are such  
      fools, why are they still in power and why are our dollars continually diverted to Halliburton, Bechtel and Big Oil? And what about Abu Ghraib. We may not have all of the answers but we had better be asking the questions.
      •  I agree ... (3.33)
        ... many people just can't believe that anyone could be so evil.  It is hard to admit that our government could be that corrupt.

        Do you know the story of the islanders who couldn't "see" the European ships on the horizon, because they were so beyond anything the natives could imagine?  

        I think it is the same thing.  For a generation of Americans who grew up watching the Brady Bunch and Sesame Street, the idea that elements of the gov't might be capable of such a crime is unthinkable.  

        May all beings be free from fear.

        by shakti on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:53:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bravo! (none)
      Very well stated!

      Whether the gang in power is incompetent or criminal is only a part of the question.

      The far more important question for us is what prevents us from changing the regime?  Is it fear, passivity, complacency, stupidity, suspiciousness of each other's motives that keep us from cooperating and working to change things.  Look at the sometimes personal attacks in in the thread above. Reminds me of the "firing squad standing in a circle" jokes about the Democratic party.

      Let's agree that things stink at the top and it is time to change.  Let's agree that many things have been covered up by the WH.  Let's keep open minds about how we have been tricked and misled--because we have, no doubt about it.

      And let's work together to change the regime.  

      (And I very much agree with Thor's fear of what FEMA might become in response to our plea for a more powerful agency.)

    •  You got it (none)
      I think you're right - they're cleverer than we are - and stuff like the "forged Texas ANG" documents were a very clever way to stop an unpleasant upcoming story and discredit the media. That wasn't accidental at all...this is a huge chess game and we have to think 10 moves ahead.

      In this vein, I think that with regards to Katrina they (Rove?) planned to do the FEMA delay (for reasons cited above), and try and pistol-whip Gov Blanco into giving up control, and perhaps never thought about the levees. When the levees broke that changed the whole equation and they found themselves in much bigger trouble than they thought.....unless of course the levees were purposly broken (but that's a different consipracy theory...)

  •  Thanks Hiley, (none)
    I've listened to THAT link in the past, but I was hoping we could present a similar, more updated record for all of us to gain traction.

    I DO believe that we have plenty of ammunition, but we also have a leadership that will counteract ALL proof of action from here on.  We just need more, fair or not.

    "How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right." Black Hawk

    by Gabriele Droz on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:59:16 PM PDT

  •  One more thing... (none)
    I'm sick of people labeling others conspiracy theorists or tin hats, the label "conspiracy theory' is used most of by those defending corporate interests the same way they use the label 'communist.'in the fifties If you are successful at pinning a person or idea with a negative label, then the public will ignore the message. The world is not a Aristotle, black /white binary logic...

    I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything,
    but I can't prove it.

  •  baloney (none)
    This conspiracy calls for too many competent people doing their jobs flawlessly.  That is simply not the MO of this administration well.  The Bush team has a world-class marketing division but when it comes to execution they suck rotten eggs.  

    Don't even try to tell me that the Bushies suck at everything they try to do, except for a massive and coordinated mission to kill off 3000 people in the most prominent buildings in America.  People don't suddenly become somebody else for just one job and then go back to who they were when it's done.  They stay the way they are.  In the case of the Bushies, that means ignoring obvious dangers until the problem bites them in the ass.  That's all there is to it.  

    Tom DeLay's GOP: cheating America in a time of war.

    by Tom Frank on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:18:54 PM PDT

    •  Bingo (none)
      It doesn't make any sense that an administration has been negligent and/or incompetant in everything they have tried to do in the last five years, except for a gigantic covert operation that they managed to pull off with the help of thousands of people (all who have remained silent) less than a year after they took office.  
  •  Thank you for posting (2.66)
    I used to be skeptical of a cover-up, but
    I find the exhaustive list of Griffin's pretty compelling.  That's not to say that I agree with all of it, or even most of it.  But it is clear that
    some people were aware of the attacks prior
    to the day.  It is also clear that certain countries had very close ties to the alleged hijackers.  

    It is simply amazing that the 9/11 Commission
    simply ignored so much evidence, and found no one responsible.  There is no question that this was a white wash, with Philip Zelikow as
    gatekeeper.

    There needs to be another investigation, and this time it needs to be independent.  Everyone in the damn thing had conflicts of interest.  To believe their story is to be awfully
    gullible.

    And if there is another investigation, they'll
    have to do better than attributing it to a
    "failure of imagination." Man, what a crock!

    •  If the administration was capable of lying (none)
      this country into war with Iraq, it was capable of all sorts of other evil.

      If the MSM were capable of pushing the lies about WMD's in Iraq, we should take what the MSM has to say about what happened on 9/11 with several grains of salt.

  •  A call to the open-minded (none)
    Anyone interested in thinking for themselves and evaluating evidence that the official 9/11 narrative  does not ring true can confidently begin their exploration here:

    http://www.911truth.org/index.php

    I'm not convinced that Bush, Cheney et al. planned the whole thing, but I think it is possible that they ignored evidence that such an event was immanent, figuring it would play to their advantage.    Remember, the neocons were hoping for a "new Pearl Harbor" so that they could employ the military to secure U.S. geopolitical interests (esp. access to oil).

    In any case, I no longer believe the offical version of events.  The official story makes no sense.  

    May all beings be free from fear.

    by shakti on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:48:00 PM PDT

  •  They are guilty of wanting it to happen (none)
    certainly.  Nobody can argue that. This was their best case scenario.  They fucking committed it to print.  

    Measure twice, cut once.

    by zig on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:50:24 PM PDT

  •  Last word... (none)
    "Just because overarching conspiracy theories are wrong (if they are)does not mean they are
    not on to something," opines Fenster in this commendably level-headed analysis
    of the grip that conspiracy theories maintain on contemporary America. He does
    not bother sifting for truth in the The X-Files, the Clinton Chronicles or
    JFK, but he does pay close attention to those who believe and promulgate
    conspiracy theories--what he calls the "conspiracy community." Even if every
    conspiracy theory is patently false (Fenster does not marshal evidence either
    way), he argues that mainstream culture's affinity for conspiracy theory is an
    important phenomenon itself. The "conspiracy" tag can be used to delegitimize
    others' opinions, as when the allegations that the CIA helped bring crack into
    East L.A. were written off as part of the African-American community's
    supposed susceptibility to conspiracy. And conspiracy theory is too often
    simply the cover story for racists and anti-Semites. But Fenster also notes
    that conspiracy theory serv es a useful purpose as a balm to the politically
    alienated segments of society, and he optimistically interprets the popular
    pursuit of uncovering the hidden mechanics of power as evidence of a latent
    populism waiting to harnessed. By neither dismissing conspiracy theorists as
    paranoid kooks nor being seduced by their yarns, Fenster constructs a strong
    case that even while we do not believe, we should nonetheless listen. (Apr.)
  •  9/11 Widow Files Suit (none)
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0311/S00261.htm and a full copy of the complaint is available at http://nancho.net/911/mariani.html =============
    911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open Letter To The POTUS
    Thursday, 27 November 2003
    Press Release: Ellen Mariani Lawsuit
    =============
    Open Letter To The President Of The United States

    Mr. Bush,

    This ''open letter'' is coming from my heart. I want you to know that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and that this is not an attempt to ''bash the Government''.

    You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all acts that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As President you have a duty to protect the American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks.

    In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of a possible attack on American soil. During your daily intelligence briefings you were given information that had been uncovered that the very real possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would use commercial aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You never warned the American people of this possible threat. Who were you protecting?

    When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public from the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the oath you spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

    On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo op". While our nation was under attack you did not appear to blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was "business as usual".

    In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when the flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in Chicago, unable to continue on to California for my daughter's wedding. Imagine my surprise when I later found out that during this "no fly" period a number of people were flown out of the country on a 747 with Arabic lettering on the fuselage. None of these people were interviewed or questioned by any local, State or Federal agencies. Why were they allowed to leave and who exactly was on that flight. We know for a fact that some of the people on the flight were members of (or related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and members of the Bin Laden family. Were these people allowed to leave because of the long-standing relationships that your family has with both families?

    It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather public support for a "war on terrorism". These wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, have not accomplished what you stated were your goals. Why have you not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? All that has happened is a bill that is passed before Congress for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you ordered blown to bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the "war on terror" I do pray and support our troops who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq by you. These troops have and will continue to die for your lies. As an American I can make this statement as it appears that associates of your family may stand to prosper from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were discovered by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11. Your reason for not releasing this material is that it is a matter of "national security". When in fact I believe that it is your personal credibility/security that you are concerned with. You do not want the public to know the full extent of your responsibility and involvement.

    After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both of these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home, and seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do this without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that this is in direct conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:

    1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at your request?

    2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

    3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

    4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?

    5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the doomed flights?

    6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?

    7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered it done?

    It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones "remains" have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in a landfill at Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a public and proud resting place where we all can pay our respects and honor them. These innocent people never had a chance as they were taken from us on that sad September Day.

    In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered each day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and our nation as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership prior to and after 9/11!

    I will prove this in a court of law!

    Ellen M. Mariani ###

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0311/S00262.htm

    See http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0311/S00261.htm for case Press Release (Interesting that it only "made the news" in New Zealand...)

    See http://nancho.net/911/mariani.htmlfor full text of suit.

    May all beings be free from fear.

    by shakti on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 08:09:42 PM PDT

  •  David Ray Griffin=Idiot (3.00)
    Or is it moron?
    AMY GOODMAN: Chip Berlet, the charges that David Ray Griffin makes, the questions he says are not answered, the implications of what he is saying, for example, a missile hitting the Pentagon as opposed to the plane, and then what happened to the passengers on board that plane?

    CHIP BERLET: Well, that's an example, and not to mention, there are a number of internet researchers have done internet searches and said they cannot find actually any witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who weren't government employees. But if you go to searches on local newspapers for when people talked to their magazines, there were hundreds of witnesses who saw a jet commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. You cannot find them on the internet because they're not there. One of the people that Griffin relies on is this -- is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can't find this witness, Dave Winslow. He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn't exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. If you pick up the "Washingtonian magazine" for September, 2002, there's a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That's the substandard research being relied on here.

    AMY GOODMAN: David ray griffin.

    DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, the difference between my position and Mr. Berlet's have -- are so extensive that we wouldn't be able to begin talking about it today, so for the most part, I can simply refer to the response that I wrote to his critique, which is published on his group's website but let me mention just a couple of things in response to what he has said. The main point, as I made -- stressed in the book and stressed earlier today is that what I have presented is a cumulative argument which relies on a massive amount of evidence that I do take to be prima facie reliable in the most part reliable as main line sources. I stress that what I'm making is not a direct charge, but a prima facie charge that says if these facts are borne out by a further investigation, then we do have strong evidence of complicity. With regard to what he said about a couple issues, I pointed out in the book that if you're presenting a deductive argument, that's when we say that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Then it is important to point out if there are a couple premises of the argument that are at fault, then the whole thing falls. But with the cumulative argument that isn't the case.

    Not the strongest defense, Griff. Perhaps that's because you're a moron?

  •  You know I am sick and tired of seeing (3.66)
    A plane didn't crash into the pentagon and/or the towers were blown up. There is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate such claims and plenty of evidence refuting them. Its on par with the we never went to the moon rubbish.

    The only thing true is there is a cover up. And that cover up is the cover up of the Bush administrations incompetence, gross criminal negligence and with Iraq and Katrina behind us I now believe 9/11 was also the result of deliberate dereliction of duty and not just rank incompetence which there seems to be plenty of to go around in the Bush Administration.

    You can see the beginnings of a similar cover up in regards to Katrina. Four years from now are we going to have to suffer conspiracy theories that Bush deliberately blew the levee's? Or secretly developed a weather control device and deliberately steared the hurricane towards NO?

    There are two main reasons these theories exist. The fact that Bush and his cronies are so negligent and incompetent that us normal folk have a hard time believing someone could be so stupid/incompetent/negligent. It defies logic and so when you combine that with the fact that Bush and Co. are trying to cover up their misdeeds and you have a fertile breeding ground for these outlandish theories.

    You've seen how incompetent they are. They can't even hide the fact that they didn't gaurd the explosive dumps post invasion in Iraq and you really think they could pull off the kind of secrecy and planning required if such theories were actually true?

    Lets concentrate on getting Bush for what he is guilty of and stop making stuff up that makes us look like idiots. So unless you can produce the guy/s that set the charges or fired the rockets or  some other such hard evidence to back up said "theories" I think it would be best to concentrate our efforts elsewhere.

    If you truly believe those theories fine and good. Do your research find the evidence that will disprove the preponderance of evidence we do have that says otherwise, but all I have seen so far from these people is wild guesses and suppositions  often backed up with innacurate details or wrong information. Not really much to have any sort of confidence in.

  •  Pentagon 'missile' theory debunked, thoroughly (none)
    •  Facts won't matter (none)
      Logic, common sense, reason....all terribly inconvenient.
    •  Visited the site you suggested (none)
      O.K., took the challenge, went to the site.
      Now i have some questions for you.
      Where is the tail section, and wings of the plane?

      If there were bodies recovered, there should be
      all manner of wreckage, all over the place, no?

      If you look at the hole in the Pentagon, prior
      to that portion of the building collapsing, you
      will notice it is very low to the ground. Not more
      than two stories tall (true, the plane at it's
      height could technically fit in this hole).
      Did the terrorist pilot fly the plane into the
      Pentagon while flying one or two feet off the
      ground? That is what the enhanced film from the
      Pentagon security camera, on this site, would
      seem to suggest.

      Also, pertaining to the pictures of the initial
      hole in the building, prior to top floor or floors
      collapsing. There is zero debris on the lawn.
      When planes crash, they leave a tremendous amount of debris. Where is it? A little piece of a wheel
      here, a little piece of something over there.
      Whole planes do not dissapper into thin air when
      they crash.

      I don't have answers for you about who did exactly
      what, when, and what their motives were on 911.
      However, there are some questions that need to be
      asked, based on the physical evidence. Griffin
      is not a moron by any stretch.
      Also, why the intense hostility toward people that have questions?

      •  ...but they still don't see (none)
        Look at the pictures, man, there's wreckage all over the place.

        Wings? Tail section? Shit, I could point to any of the metal, claim it was wings, tail, etc. Obviously, the plane's bits are amongst the wreckage, in little bits.

        No, I do not suggest the pilot flew it three feet off the ground. I suggest like the record shows he hit the ground milliseconds before slamming into the Pentago. Duh.

        Prior to the collapse, there is zero debris on the lawn? Where do you get that? I'm not sure if the pictures of the lawn are before or after. But the wreckage is in all of 'em to varying degrees. Go look at the pictures again. Yeah, it didn't vanish, it's all over the damn place.

        I would suggest to you Griffin is a moron, and a nutjob. He's a theologian, which ought to tell you a lot right there. Get me an aviation expert who believes any of this crap you tin-foil hat-wearers spout.

        I'm hostile to anyone who spews nonsense about this. And if you had any brains, you would do the same.

        •  No, I don't see it yet (none)
          So your answers to me are...
          'S***, I could point to any of the metal, and claim it was wings etc.'....sure you could claim it was anything....is it wings, tail section or not?
          The plane was flown into the base of the building...duh. There are other pictures available on the web, that show the hole, with smoke flowing out of it, with NOTHING on the lawn. Even in the pictures on the site you suggest, there is relatively little debris for such a large craft. Look around the web for pictures of other plane crashes.
          Griffin is a moron and a nutjob, because he is a theologian?!...Good one.
          One other thing. On this site, the author refers to sixty bodies being recovered and returned to families. Of all the sites i've looked at, tinfoil, or physical research oriented, that is the first I've heard of that. It was my impression, that the official version was, all or most of the plane entered the building through the hole, and was vaporized, which would explain where the 'big pieces' of the plane went, ie. wings, tail section, engines, etc.
          It is obvious you already have made your mind up which is your right obviously. But it seems to me you have some type of ax to grind with the swearing and the condescending attitude.
          Can't you make your case rationally, without being rude?
          •  No, I can't (none)
            Your comments, your tin-foil hat-wearing beliefs and willingness to espouse them hurts or could hurt legitimate efforts to change the currently one-party rule of the federal government. And you want polite, over a bunch of wackjob allegations that fly in the face of all available evidence? PUH-lease.
James Earl, Deep Dark, sakitume, Frederick, Skubwa, Max Wyvern, Grassroots Mom, MichaelPH, Terri, underwhelm, Oregon guy, jillian, hazey, Peanut, Rayne, liza, JeffSCinNY, gogol, brendani, drmonkey, Alan S, Winger, Bob Love, Sprinkles, donna in evanston, liz, byoungbl, lysias, gaff98, SF Bay, sunzoo, Pluto1618, DemDachshund, swamp possum, blksista, MilwMom, ilona, object16, exNYinTX, zeitshabba, dnamj, marielle, Eternal Hope, shermanesq, jackspace, mlafleur, Xeno of Elia, MC in NY, txbc, kwinz, bronte17, sponson, CanadaGoose, Grzbo, Einsteinia, Silverleaf, DrKate, guyute16, elveta, jeremiah bullfrog, Susan1138, nyceve, The 1n Only Leoni, Janie, eyeinhand, Baldwiny, jiffykeen, Loquatrix, blueherring, buckhorn okie, quaderni, weatherunderground, LeftofArizona, LondonYank, dqueue, bincbom, luku, House, neoeconomist, hesk, dchill, PeteZerria, hiley, Nate Roberts, marysz, rwilson, nitetalker, deadinthewater, Braindead, rcvanoz, commons3nse, Miss Alabama, Subversive, astrodud, missliberties, young voter, sp0t, Boppy, TXsharon, cgLynch, GrainofSand, duncanidaho, NYFM, dwahzon, ArcXIX, nika7k, tomchampagne, STOP George, wecandoit7, Hewsh, lcrp, Democratic Hawk, cevad, One bite at a time, peirone, Noisy Democrat, mattes, rebellingboxer, lfin, Eckhart1234, kfred, DrReason, TheOrchid, Jorge Managua, justmy2, rickeagle, negropontedeathsquads, rockmoonwater, califdweller, rickroks, guyermo, macmcd, Thirsty, sawgrass727, a517dogg, skippythebox, fiddly bits, SteveK, leolabeth, nehark, Skennet Boch, drofx, chumley, cantwait08, rabid decline, DulceDecorum, patrioticliberal, aitoaster, LarisaW, alaprst, revbludge, McGirk SF, jpwillis, Superpole, Oaklander, Sanada Yukimura, Hotspur18, crimsonscare, Darth Codis, paj1, juliesie, live food, Nordic, Ranting Roland, Richard Carlucci, wasteedub, Back in the Cave, Calamity Jane, dg10348, lennysfo, Annalize5, jimreyn, GreyHawk, Shappy, Overseas, Tumble Weed, Cecile, A Rational Being, LeckyV, SSA, A DC Transplant, jm taylor, TreasonHigh, MHoward, Blakbelt, chickendove, TexasEx

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site