New Theories Urgently Needed

[silvanski 1]

Well you have not totally convinced me about the moon landings but you have provided food for thought and at least you made an argument rather than just saying i was crazy or needed sex.(i am thousands of miles from my wife during the visa process so that is a cheap shot )

We all need sex so I won't use that as an argument

I respect everyone's right to have a point of view, even I don't agree with it. Healthy debate is much better than mud slinging.

[dalegg 143]

I also notice you didn`t have a response for my debunking of your debunk. It is funny how you are so selective.

Oh, my bad, your rebuts didn't come for a couple days after I posted my cheap debunking

Sorry i was tryign to get the whole article but no joy. I also had a life to live

Can I change my answer to your answer? Also, now you are saying people are tag-teaming you, so I'm not sure if you want responses or not.

People jumped from the WTC so the fire was hot enough to bring down the towers? Interesting logic. I didn`t say there was no fire where. I said the fire was not as big as it would have needed to be in my view.

Okay, I cannot believe you have pushed me to this, but since you will not listen to simple answers, how about I ask you? How hot does the fire have to be to bring down the towers, and how hot do you think it was, and why do you think these tempatures are not hot enough to bring down the towers?

As for the gold ring it would indicate to me that Osama is not a muslim. I don`t really know the rules and until i saw Loose Change i was not aware of this law. I guess that proves that the whole of Loose Change was wrong? ........no it proves that Osama was not what he claims to be.

No, it proves that the maker of "loose change" is more interested in stirring up controversy than checking up on things he says in the video. I'll give you the whole of the text there-

Not to mention he's wearing a gold ring, which is forbidden by Islamic law, And is never mentioned in the FBI's description of him

For one thing, we have no idea what the ring is made of, but for another thing anyone can very easily find pictures of him wearing a ring, so whether it's mentioned in an FBI description is kind of irrelevant, isn't it?

This is not by any means the last or most significant misleading segmant in the movie either. If you want more, I'd be happy to give you more. But my gut is telling me it will do no good.

Added to this the whole list of hijackers (who are nto all dead) came out super fast which would consider either a cover up or prior knowledge or an underway investigation.

Yes, "Loose Change" says at least nine of them are alive, but upon further investigation, none of those claims can be substantiated. I'll give you just one example. If you want more, I'll give you those too.

From "Loose Change"

"Wail M. Alshehri is alive and well" What in the film backs that up? But what refutes that is Still alive?

[yabasta 0]

Can I change my answer to your answer? Also, now you are saying people are tag-teaming you, so I'm not sure if you want responses or not.

sorry i don`t mind how long you take to respond i am not like that other guy who thinks i need to respond in minutes or i am somehow proving him right in my time keeping. It is simply true that i have a life to live a job to do and a wife online aswell as my own message board and a number of other online activities to balance. Despite opinion in this thread i am not sitting in my room howling at my lamp.

I only pointed out your non response on these points because you did respond to discredit me after that but with no mention of what i said regardign your "debunk". See you might say Loose Change is propoganda but then what is your debunk article? more basic and less convincing propaganda. If Loose Change is a documentary then your article is a document and as i have not seen your document i can not comment on it, apart from what i have seen of it and where it was spawned. What i have seen is not that impressive however. Sure you found a picture of bin Laden with a Gold looking ring. This appears to show that Bin Laden is not a strict muslim. It does not go against anything stated in Loose Change as such it just makes that issue in Loose Change redundant. That isssue in Loose Change however was never a major issue but more of an additional poitn tha was not required for me since the obviously different face etc was enough along with the convenient finding place.

It clearly comes from a point of bias. Whilst you can argue that Loose Change is a debunking of the official 9/11 story and is therefore also from a point of bias this document is written with the obvious aim of supporting the official story(a story which has the clear support of the mainstream news media and is by far better equipped financially) and making the call for an enquiry weaker. The calls for an enquiry come from small independant media. Journalists who operate from their bedrooms who of course have no instituion to validate their honesty or authenticity. But that does not mean that they are not authentic or honest or that the mainstream is to be trusted any more. In fact the case against mainstream news sources is stronger. Just look at incidents of journalists who work for the state and the heavy influence of Murdoch etc at Fox and the lies of CNN when they showed an Afghan birthday celebration or something and said they were celebrating the fall of the evil empire America. Yes the mainstream has been proven to be controlled and the case agaisnt it is strong with 9/11 because they rarely speak of the truth movement and when they do it is a mocking dismissive word to discourage people from paying it any attention.

Fortunately some people think for themselves.

Loose Change is a student film. A documentary made by young students with limited resources. At least that is my understanding. So to criticise their level of research seems rather harsh especially when based on the gold ring point which is i believe a rather unimportant side issue anyway.

Okay, I cannot believe you have pushed me to this, but since you will not listen to simple answers, how about I ask you? How hot does the fire have to be to bring down the towers, and how hot do you think it was, and why do you think these tempatures are not hot enough to bring down the towers?

Well it seems there is much disagreement in expert circles over the exact temperature but the people who certified the steel said that

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

source

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA411A.html

If you want more, I'd be happy to give you more. But my gut is telling me it will do no good.

I wish you woudl stop painting me as the person who won`t listen. I have not been name calling or suggestign people get laid or implying that people are insnae or whatever else. I have been responding honestly and to the best of my ability i have kept an open mind despite the way the debate has been set up as a boxing match

Yes, "Loose Change" says at least nine of them are alive, but upon further investigation, none of those claims can be substantiated. I'll give you just one example. If you want more, I'll give you those too.

From "Loose Change"

"Wail M. Alshehri is alive and well" What in the film backs that up? But what refutes that is Still alive?

Again Loose Change is a small budget release and i don`t think they had a Michael Moore budget so they relied on things that we use to research this topic like Google and news reports.

I believe sources are cited including the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

and here is a list i found.

http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/suspects/hijackers-alive

By all means provide informationt hat you believe counters these news reports. These reports are from reputable media though and whilst i know that doesn`t mean infallable you must acknowledge that it is reasonable for the makers of Loose Change to use this in a documentary on 9/11 the same way people use Osama as being responsible. So you have reports that say otherwise? Please enter them into the court as i am interested in learning the truth despite what you might think. The trouble with conflicting reports is you don`t know who to believe.

The remarkable thing to me is how did the FBI come up with the list so quickly? I certainly don`t buy magic passports that don`t burn.

Essentially you are attacking despite your initial response. I find that a sudden turn then turn again as if you were in fact looking for the "debunk" article and you perhaps accept that debunk a little too easily despite it being very flimsy and easily responded to. Your highlights certainly have had a little merit but they certainly did not touch on the biggest 9/11 errors and outright holes.

[almaty 19]

yabasta, i have changed my viewpoint on you..your are dedicated and steadfast..i salute you for being open and sharing your views ,.,right or wrong ..you have hung in there ,, ........................dean

[dalegg 143]

Well it seems there is much disagreement in expert circles over the exact temperature but the people who certified the steel said that

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

Nobody is saying the steal melted, just weakened- and at much lower temperatures.

Essentially you are attacking despite your initial response. I find that a sudden turn then turn again as if you were in fact looking for the "debunk" article and you perhaps accept that debunk a little too easily despite it being very flimsy and easily responded to. Your highlights certainly have had a little merit but they certainly did not touch on the biggest 9/11 errors and outright holes.

Yes, your assessment is dead on. I've watched loose change 3 times. The first time I was in a bit of shock. It seemed pretty scary. I even showed it to my brother. In fact for about a day, while yes, absolutely I began to look for contradictory statements to see if the statements in that movie stood up against challenge, I seriously questioned our government. I think when you are looking at something objectionally this is the responsible thing to do. In the beginning I was finding nothing but week responses to insignificant points, until I came across this document that puts the entire movie in doubt. By the time I watched the movie the third time, I was literally laughing out loud.

Yabasta, I am sorry if my responses have come across in a harsh tone. I guess they have and I told myself I would not go that route because I was at one point on the same side of this issue as you, so I know why you feel the way you do. I don't think anything I've told you would be enough on it's own to debunk the conspiracy theory to people that believe it, but there is enough evidence out there to support the governments case if you look for it, and if you want to give it a chance. Of course, that's just my opinion.

To clarify what I've been trying to do is not so much debunk the conspiracy. There are others who do a far better job at that than me: This is good, but debunk the statement

Loose Change second edition is a well put together documentary.

And to that end, I did at least get you to say:

Loose Change is a student film. A documentary made by young students with limited resources. At least that is my understanding. So to criticise their level of research seems rather harsh especially when based on the gold ring point which is i believe a rather unimportant side issue anyway.

so I'm satisfied. (but I'm not criticising it only on that little gold ring statement)

[dalegg 143]

By all means provide informationt hat you believe counters these news reports. These reports are from reputable media though and whilst i know that doesn`t mean infallable you must acknowledge that it is reasonable for the makers of Loose Change to use this in a documentary on 9/11 the same way people use Osama as being responsible. So you have reports that say otherwise? Please enter them into the court as i am interested in learning the truth despite what you might think.

I missed this challenge.

I believe sources are cited including the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east

is countered with:

waleed_al-shehri_still_alive

and

http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/suspects/hijackers-alive

Is refuted by

usa today

and

abdulaziz_al_omari

and

Link

and

wail_al-shehri

and

khalidandnawaf

and

said_al-ghamdi

and

ahmed_al-nami

and

mohammed_atta

and

Autopsy

The remarkable thing to me is how did the FBI come up with the list so quickly?

Why is this so remarkable? There's like 200 total passengers on the four flights. The FAA knew very quickly which flights were hijacked, so they call the airlines that afternoon and say, "E-Mail us the passenger lists from these 4 flights".

The Airlines bring up the lists on their computers in like, 2 minutes, and send the information back (maybe by fax). The FBI puts these 200 names into their computer, does a name match on known terror suspects in their database, and 10 to 60 minutes later (depending on the speed of their computer), walaa! They have their suspects. The list could go out that evening. I see no problem with this.

I certainly don`t buy magic passports that don`t burn.

Finally we do have the one part of this that I myself find odd, still. But it's not really a stretch that the passport didn't burn. Afterall, after the plane hit the building, a lot of other paper flew out without burning also. See the attached image. Kind of vague, but there are probably other pictures that show it also.

Edited May 29, 2006 by dalegg

[MichelleandCraig 1]

Wow. I will NEVER buy the 9/11 conspiracy theory,I'll just make that clear, but I have to admit to a new respect for all that have been posting these articles. You are certainly well informed, both(all) of you!

[yabasta 0]

Wow. I will NEVER buy the 9/11 conspiracy theory,I'll just make that clear, but I have to admit to a new respect for all that have been posting these articles. You are certainly well informed, both(all) of you!

I mean no offense by this but i know i tend to offend around here so sorry in advance.

but....

Your statement is very telling. If you think about how stubborn that statement is for a moment. You will NEVER buy the 9/11 conspiracy theory? I assume you don`t mean the theory that 19 men from Saudi Arabia (mainly) with boxcutters and orders from a cave somehow managed to take control of 4 Boeing jets and fly 3 of these into their targets? That isn`t the conspiracy that you speak of right? That one is believable right?

So you will never believe. This is called denial. There is no open mind there at all as you say. This means that if Bush came out and said "the secret service did it" and then the indiviual men responsible came out and said "yes we did it" you would still not accept that it could be true. This means you are approaching the topic from a bias standpoint. Of course you are nto the only one. There needs to be an open minded look at the evidence and a thorough look for more evidence no matter what it proves. If i am wrogn i will say o.k. i was wrong. It is simply the lack of a proper investigation and the evidence of a cover up of that information.

[dalegg 143]

I wanted to add one more thing to this link you put in earlier:

Well it seems there is much disagreement in expert circles over the exact temperature but the people who certified the steel said that

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

source

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA411A.html

Regarding Kevin Ryan, who wrote this article, U.L. Reponded with this statement:

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman." Source

“U.L.’s Fire Protection Division has assisted NIST in its investigations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. However, Mr. Ryan was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with U.L.’s Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST’s request. Rather, Mr. Ryan was employed in U.L.’s water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory, in South Bend, Indiana.

"...Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without UL’s knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL’s behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc..."

Kevin Ryan did not work for a division that had anything to do with testing steel or any other construction material. He tested water. The experts do agree with each other. It’s the non-experts like Ryan who disagree. As far as I know, as of April, 2006, not a single structural engineer in the world has expressed support for any WTC conspiracy theory, and certainly no one who worked on the investigation has. Zero.

[yabasta 0]

I wanted to add one more thing to this link you put in earlier:

Regarding Kevin Ryan, who wrote this article, U.L. Reponded with this statement:

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman." Source

“U.L.’s Fire Protection Division has assisted NIST in its investigations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. However, Mr. Ryan was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with U.L.’s Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST’s request. Rather, Mr. Ryan was employed in U.L.’s water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory, in South Bend, Indiana.

"...Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without UL’s knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL’s behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc..."

Kevin Ryan did not work for a division that had anything to do with testing steel or any other construction material. He tested water. The experts do agree with each other. It’s the non-experts like Ryan who disagree. As far as I know, as of April, 2006, not a single structural engineer in the world has expressed support for any WTC conspiracy theory, and certainly no one who worked on the investigation has. Zero.

I will reply to your points in more detail tomorrow hopefulyl once my broadband is up and running.

I will urge you to look again though as there is evidence of engineers speaking out on this topic against the official story.

[dalegg 143]

I will reply to your points in more detail tomorrow hopefulyl once my broadband is up and running.

I will urge you to look again though as there is evidence of engineers speaking out on this topic against the official story.

I will be looking forward to that. But before I look for evidence of engineers speaking out on the topic, I will provide you with these links so that you can see what engineers who agree with the official version have to say:

TC Forensic

JOM-Biederman

CAD

CAD-Technical

Nova

JOM-Edgar.

MIT

and unless you prove the people who wrote these articles have no more credibility than Kevin Ryan, we would be getting into a scientific debate and I doubt either of us could actually debunk what actual structural engineers have to say if they provide scientific reasoning to why they say it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow. I will NEVER buy the 9/11 conspiracy theory,I'll just make that clear, but I have to admit to a new respect for all that have been posting these articles. You are certainly well informed, both(all) of you!

I mean no offense by this but i know i tend to offend around here so sorry in advance.

but....

Your statement is very telling. If you think about how stubborn that statement is for a moment. You will NEVER buy the 9/11 conspiracy theory? I assume you don`t mean the theory that 19 men from Saudi Arabia (mainly) with boxcutters and orders from a cave somehow managed to take control of 4 Boeing jets and fly 3 of these into their targets? That isn`t the conspiracy that you speak of right? That one is believable right?

So you will never believe. This is called denial. There is no open mind there at all as you say. This means that if Bush came out and said "the secret service did it" and then the indiviual men responsible came out and said "yes we did it" you would still not accept that it could be true. This means you are approaching the topic from a bias standpoint. Of course you are nto the only one. There needs to be an open minded look at the evidence and a thorough look for more evidence no matter what it proves. If i am wrogn i will say o.k. i was wrong. It is simply the lack of a proper investigation and the evidence of a cover up of that information.

You keep yabbering on about this need for an 'open-minded look at the evidence', There is no direct proof of any kind whatsoever that the secret service or any government agency was involved in bringing down the WTC. As I said before, its like coming across a decapitated corpse and coming to the conclusion that the death had nothing to do with the axe lying beside the body.

There is no precedent for 9/11 - architects don't design buildings to survive a direct hit by a passenger plane running at full speed.

This is not about being 'open-minded', you are not considering all the evidence, just the parts that agree with what you already believe. Stop trying to disguise this with 'objectivity'.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

yes, I know about critical thinking and all that... I just don't happen to believe that this was a conspiracy..there are a lot of people on BOTH sides of the fence, and I was simply restating. I don't wish to get involved in this, but I AM reading the thread, so apparently I'm not TOO closed-minded, or I wouldn't even bother, right? Doesn't mean it's changing my mind tho... M.

[SteveLaura 0]

A few pages back you said that you personally don't believe that man landed on the moon... What 'proof' then would it take for you to believe otherwise?

Today, three abandoned lunar rovers still sit on the Moon. With the exception of their plastic parts, they will probably be sitting there thousands of years from now -- a silent testament to 20th century engineering.

"It's been very meaningful to me over the years to see the rover in pictures and photographs and on the television -- it's still sitting up there on the moon," Simpson said. "I had a little bitty part in putting it on the moon for who knows how long."

Source

Them's pretty good proof, I reckon. Someone will go back there some day, no doubt. And if these modules are not there, then...?

btw your link shows no evidence of the rovers being visible.

I realise that in this particular thread you expect to see opposition from all sides, but I wasn't knocking your theories. I posted the source to back up the quote, not as proof. I am merely suggesting that, if the landings are true as widely believed, then there is some rather large physical evidence to back that up still there. I would be as curious as everyone else to see them, whenever anyone returns.

[yabasta 0]

You keep yabbering on about this need for an 'open-minded look at the evidence', There is no direct proof of any kind whatsoever that the secret service or any government agency was involved in bringing down the WTC. As I said before, its like coming across a decapitated corpse and coming to the conclusion that the death had nothing to do with the axe lying beside the body.

There is no precedent for 9/11 - architects don't design buildings to survive a direct hit by a passenger plane running at full speed.

This is not about being 'open-minded', you are not considering all the evidence, just the parts that agree with what you already believe. Stop trying to disguise this with 'objectivity'.

Well firstly what i am doing is not yabbering i am addressing the closed minded approach to this debate. That does not mean you have to stop believing a particular side of the debate it just means that you listen to what people have to say even if you don`t agree or accept. It means you don`t call their points yabbering. It means you do address the points made and make your own. It does not mean you attack those with different views to you. You fail to show me respect time and time again. I don`t claim to know you or know why you fail to show me any basic respect but it really is a weakness that you have if i may say so.

As for direct proof there is an important piece of direct proof that you miss. The direct proof is the cover up. The direct proof is operation northwoods and executive order W199I. Norad`s apparent stand down i would call direct proof. The Bush business ties to Bin Laden would be direct proof surely? How about the planes allowed to fly members of the Bin Laden family out of America? Not direct enough? Evidence of foreknowledge There is also motive of course which any detective would look for.

As for your murdered body i would ask you this.

If you come up to what looks like a dead body being taken away and buried and you see no axe wound but the persons covering the body in dirt says here is the weapon it was Al Qaeda(or however it is spelled this week) and they can`t stand freedom and hide in caves controlling their minions using subliminable boxcutting tunes. Would you say "well it seems it was Al Qaeda as we have the axe and there is no evidence linking the undertaker to the crime. That undertaker sure is doing good business nowadays. He must be loaded. he sure is stoopid though."

Well you change your story again i assume as the speed of the jet is one thing i have not seen used as a theory even by the establishment. If such a theory exists could you show me this theory? All accounts that dalegg(hope i got that right) listed as far as i can tell are the usual heat warping the steel theories. The heat fromt he fuel would not be hotter if the plane was going full speed there would just be less fuel to burn inside the building i guess. So i am not sure why you are talking about architects doing or not doing this. The designers of WTC towers said however (despite this being another side issue since that theory has not really been put forward by anybody i know of) that the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707 which has a max fuel load of 23000 gallons compared to a Boeing 767 which whilst is a bigger plane it only holds 24000 gallons of fuel. The size of the plane would be an issue if it had knocked out support beams but still this to me does not explain the total demolition of the towers. It is like saying the towers were badly designed because they collapsed from a fire but well designed because they fell virtually into their own footprints. If the towers came down due to bad design then why are the design company not being sued. The insurance on the towers cos billions to an insurance company based on it being two terror attacks but surely the design company should have at least been held partly responsible.

Across the board you can say why didn`t Norad do something or why didn`t the Pentagon have better defenses than that? So many things that simply don`t add up. Going back to the original topic again. How does a Boeing 767 get into that tiny hole and not even mark the lawn?

I am objective. At leas ti do try to be objective. Of course i have a strong opinion on this topic but that ha snot come to me on a whim. I did not just say well i don`t like government much so they must have done it. Far from it. When i was first faced with the idea of this i thought it seemed rather outlandish. I could nto get my head around it. Eventually when thigns just keep coming through you have to take notice. I am not sure at what point you stop information getting through to your brain. You could i guess have seen and read all that i have and still think whatever it is you think but i just find it hard to believe that. I have spoken to a lot of people about this topic as you might imagine. I am one of those people that likes to discuss things like this in pubs instead of football. A lot of people start off not really knowing much about what happened because they saw it on t.v. and that was pretty much where their personal investigations ended. It is scary how many people don`t even know about building 7 coming down.

It is not suprising anymore though since MSNBC i think it was didn`t even show footage of building 7 when they had Prof Steven Jones on the show explaining his controlled demolition theory. This is one of many incidents that can be seen as blatant attempts to cover up what happened. Why have him on the show in the first place? Well people will tune in so you can have him on but don`t let him make his point, people like him must be seen as conspiracy nuts. Giving him airtime at all is just the same thing as Fox having a "liberal" on, it gives the illusion of fairness and balance.

My comment about objectivity was a point that you can`t deny. If somebody says I will NEVER believe something that pretty much tells you that they don`t have an open mind. I pointed it out because i thought it was worth noting. I don`t have any malice here. I am defending myself for the most part as i have been attacked for expressing my views. In the last few pages an actual grown up debate has emerged though and so now i am joining in that debate. I am passionate abou tmy beliefs but if you bring me something conclusive that answers a poitn then i will concede and move on. There are plenty of poitns to debate. As i have sort of set myself up as the nutcase you get to defend a much less elaborate conspiracy theory i guess but it is not easy to do i assure you. The official story is as hard to believe as any "conspiracy theory". It only becomes easier when you add the prejudices of people.

On the point of objectivity but relatign to hijackers. It is totally conceivable to me that the hijack was carried out by saudi nationals of "Al Qaeda" and it was possibly those 19 men that were listed by the FBI.

However this is by no means resolved. We have conflicting reports of men still alive and then men not alive as documented above. Well how about the idea that they were not even on the plane?

Were there hijackers on flight 77?

The FBI says that these men were the men who hijacked flight 77

Khalid Almihdhar

Majed Moqed

Nawaf Alhazmi

Salem Alhazmi

Hani Hanjour

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm

The video mentioned on the first page of this thread was obtained under the FOIA. Perhaps a more important FOIA release was this one however.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10001.jpg

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10001.jpg

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10002.jpg

Now who wanted structural engineers?

This link has a google video embed of an expert, i would urge that you all watch this as he is an expert and whilst there are experts on both sides i think it should be seen as he makes some very good points in a very expert manner.

http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/MITEngineer.php

If you scroll down that page you will see a lot of links to other experts like Steven Jones (a physics professor) and Morgan Reynolds(professor and ex chief economist to Bush).

This page i offer up as a sort of debate piece for both "sides"(are we not the same team?)

http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/web....php?blog_id=32

It is a page of responses to Prof Jones` paper. It includes support and criticism. This page for me helps to emphasize the grey area here. There are people on both sides of most aspects. If you put yourself in different mind sets you can say well maybe this happened because of this. I do believe it or not try to figure that out. Again that is how common sense gets involved in this. In debates like this i have to be prepared for the experts who say this and i need to process that information and see if it blows me out of the water. Well whilst i agree that there is some pretty strong arguments to says yes the buildings came down from the heat it sadly leaves me with simply new questions about the design of the building and as i said before why no fallout from that?

The point about the underwriters changing their story seems pretty obvious. After all Ryan himself mentions his company`s liability if the steel melted or warped at lower temperatures. It seems to me that his letter has no less merit just because he was fired and denounced on this basis.

As always please excuse any typos as i am a bad typer and my brain goes quicker than my fingers can.

Edited May 30, 2006 by yabasta