New Theories Urgently Needed

[rclouse 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.

Yabasta, you have come to a conclusion (that 9/11 was a conspiracy/no plane hit the Pentagon) and now you look for facts or inconsistencies to support it. You choose to ignore the vast amount of evidence that disagrees with your conclusion. You're exactly like a Christian fundamentalist who refuses to accept the theory of evolution.

Have you been fitted for your tin-foil hat yet?

[yabasta 0]

Yabasta, you have come to a conclusion (that 9/11 was a conspiracy/no plane hit the Pentagon) and now you look for facts or inconsistencies to support it. You choose to ignore the vast amount of evidence that disagrees with your conclusion. You're exactly like a Christian fundamentalist who refuses to accept the theory of evolution.

Have you been fitted for your tin-foil hat yet?

First question i have to ask is:

Why would you need a fitting for a hat made of tin foil?

Second question is:

When did i say i didn`t think a plane hit the Pentagon?

Third question is:

Why have you not offered an actual response to what i have said rather than just pulling a response out of your #######? If you have vast evidence then please submit it. Personal attacks and showing how little you have read of my views and opinions is not really a great response. I don`t know if you have read anything i posted have you?

[dalegg 143]

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.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10001.jpg

With reference to this, the reason that only 58 victims were identified is because the relatives came forward with DNA evidence. Nobody from the hijackers' families came forward with such evidence that could be used for analysis. The official autopsy also misses 2-year Dana Falkenberg (possibly daughter of Charles and Zoe?) that was also on that flight.

But accounts elsewhere explain that the hijackers bodies were recovered, and provide details on why they weren’t on the list. CBS news

Now who wanted structural engineers?

I think you mean me, but what I wanted also was a discrediting of each of the engineers who go along with the original version, because otherwise it's a kind of "your scientist against my scientist" debate and since we aint getting these guys all in the same room together we're not going to find out how they themselves would do in such a debate.

If you scroll down that page you will see a lot of links to other experts like Steven Jones

I actually read this guys report this morning and he seems to be a good voice. The only problem with him is that he's going down the road of proving the temperatures had to be hotter than official records because of molten steel he believes he sees coming off the trade centers and from 2nd hand accounts of reports of molten steel from people who cannot verify the accounts they made origianally. This unfortunately keeps a big doubt over the issue no matter what he concludes. I think you are sort of conceding that point too.

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.

I didn't catch where the underwriters changed their story in that article. I caught where Ryan said "why doctor Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all", but I haven't seen where the Doctor Brown ever said that 2000F would melt high grade steel.

Ryan's mention of his company's liability is incorrect because "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, and Ryan didn’t work for a division that had anything to do with testing steel or any other construction material Source.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10001.jpg

With reference to this, the reason that only 58 victims were identified is because the relatives came forward with DNA evidence. Nobody from the hijackers' families came forward with such evidence that could be used for analysis. The official autopsy also misses 2-year Dana Falkenberg (possibly daughter of Charles and Zoe?) that was also on that flight.

But accounts elsewhere explain that the hijackers bodies were recovered, and provide details on why they weren’t on the list. CBS news

Now who wanted structural engineers?

I think you mean me, but what I wanted also was a discrediting of each of the engineers who go along with the original version, because otherwise it's a kind of "your scientist against my scientist" debate and since we aint getting these guys all in the same room together we're not going to find out how they themselves would do in such a debate.

If you scroll down that page you will see a lot of links to other experts like Steven Jones

I actually read this guys report this morning and he seems to be a good voice. The only problem with him is that he's going down the road of proving the temperatures had to be hotter than official records because of molten steel he believes he sees coming off the trade centers and from 2nd hand accounts of reports of molten steel from people who cannot verify the accounts they made origianally. This unfortunately keeps a big doubt over the issue no matter what he concludes. I think you are sort of conceding that point too.

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.

I didn't catch where the underwriters changed their story in that article. I caught where Ryan said "why doctor Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all", but I haven't seen where the Doctor Brown ever said that 2000F would melt high grade steel.

Ryan's mention of his company's liability is incorrect because "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, and Ryan didn’t work for a division that had anything to do with testing steel or any other construction material Source.

Doctor Brown

Is this the fellow?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Doctor Brown

Is this the fellow?

Sorry couldn't resist

[yabasta 0]

With reference to this, the reason that only 58 victims were identified is because the relatives came forward with DNA evidence. Nobody from the hijackers' families came forward with such evidence that could be used for analysis. The official autopsy also misses 2-year Dana Falkenberg (possibly daughter of Charles and Zoe?) that was also on that flight.

But accounts elsewhere explain that the hijackers bodies were recovered, and provide details on why they weren’t on the list. CBS news

Your article did not say that all bodies were identified from their DNA it is also not flight 77 specific so that makes it hard to get clear information from it. As with many news articles it is largely quotes that are too vague to base any investigation on. It speaks of DNA and id from personal items. It then goes on to mention that the bodies were cremated but not as a memorial but a "group burial for victims not identified". It makes me wonder how many people are not identified.

It also casts doubt on a previous point. If they identify these remains as hijackers but have no positive i.d then how do they firstly know that these men were responsible and secondly how do they even know that they are the men who they are claimed to be? An earlier point(possibly you) said that they were identified from the passenger list and matched up with terror suspects. I also wonder if all those men were terror suspects and if so why were they not being monitored. If they were suspects but not prvoen to be terrorists then how can you be sure that they had then become terrorists? See these are all valid questions which a good investigation would look into. I don`t think it is pedantic to ask for evidence. Even if you are 100% in your mind that these men are guilty would you not like to know how these was proven?

That then leads nicely onto the question: why were at least a couple of the hijackers "training" at Pensacola?

Is this perhaps the real reason why they were identified so quickly?

http://www.welfarestate.com/911/#1

I think you mean me, but what I wanted also was a discrediting of each of the engineers who go along with the original version, because otherwise it's a kind of "your scientist against my scientist" debate and since we aint getting these guys all in the same room together we're not going to find out how they themselves would do in such a debate.

Well sorry if i didn`t post what you wanted. In your post though you stated that the number of structural engineers to come out against the official version was "zero" and i felt it was important to recitfy that mistaken claim. If you do not wish to have my scientists against yours that is fair enough but i feel it is important that the passer by is aware that such people are out there. The list of people speaking out is a very broad range of different people from many backgrounds. Most people in the conspiracy nut business are

I would speculate that more people (of all walks of life) would speak out on this but i think a lot of people are probably put off by the way they see people are handled by the press after they speak out. The labelling of people as conspiracy nuts is a very advanced form of bullying. The bullying is repeated by small minded people who heard the words "tin foil hat brigade" once and think it is funny. It is totally childish behaviour. When people argue left and rght politics they can get pretty brutal debating but when you suggest that the state lies and covers it up you get the CT word straight off the bat. The attempts to paint me as insane have been rather tame and hopefully most people see those comments for what they are. I have heard of death threats being issued to Steven Jones and there have been some suspicious deaths that are possibly coincidences but even if they are they probably scare a lot of people into silence. Now i am sounding paranoid and the tin foil hat comments will come out again. Well by all means call me that again. When you are done i will debate my views some more. (by the way that is not addressed to anybody in particular but was just a rant)

I actually read this guys report this morning and he seems to be a good voice. The only problem with him is that he's going down the road of proving the temperatures had to be hotter than official records because of molten steel he believes he sees coming off the trade centers and from 2nd hand accounts of reports of molten steel from people who cannot verify the accounts they made origianally. This unfortunately keeps a big doubt over the issue no matter what he concludes. I think you are sort of conceding that point too.

Well i am not sure what you mean by a "good voice". I suspect you don`t want to give in too much by saying he makes a good case. I appreciate that as i have found some of your information very interesting but none of it has quite punched through for me. I mean yes there are issues that are very much unresolved from either side and that is exactly why we need a proper investigation into 9/11.

I didn't catch where the underwriters changed their story in that article.

I meant that after Ryan wrote the letter(which i believe he wrote as himself and not a representative of the lab and is perhaps why he was fired) they came out and disowned him.

Judging by your article they disowned him and certification. I am not sure why Ryan would make anything up like this. He has not to my knowledge become a big star off of his letter and why would he lie so openly then?

Just isn`t adding up is it?

I am curious to know what your thoughts are on building 7 too.

[cmartyn 0]

The news is saying they have discovered new physical evidence and have new eye witnesses in the case of Di's tragic whallop into a bridge.

Interesting, I bet that they had Jimmy Hoffa in the trunk at the time.

[dalegg 143]

Judging by your article they disowned him and certification. I am not sure why Ryan would make anything up like this. He has not to my knowledge become a big star off of his letter and why would he lie so openly then?

Just isn`t adding up is it?

Well, I don't know why he would lie about it, but I also don't know why U.L would say he was full of BS if he wasn't. UL made a statement:

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center,"

They made this statement publicly, and it is a direct statement, so it is either a lie or it isn't. If it's a lie, it should be easy enough to find out whether or not it's true. I've not ever seen anyone offer proof that they are lying. It seems to me that would be a pretty big matza ball if it was.

If it is a true statement it proves that Ryan is not a good source as to what his company does or doesn't do.

This whole line is kind of overblown anyway, because the idea is that someone else in his company (Dr. Brown) said they saw molten steel- a statement that doesn't seem to be able to be verified. So- if Doctor Brown saw molten steel why has he not come out and said that on his own? He would know that the temperatures caused by burning jet fuel could not have caused that- and so would UL- So, for them to cover this up to me means that UL would have to be involved in the conspiracy also. No- it just doesn't add up!!

I am curious to know what your thoughts are on building 7 too.

My thoughts are that there was more damage to building 7 from on going fires than was originally broadcast.

Battalion Chief John Norman

Special Operations Command - 22 years

"From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. "

Norman

Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.

Captain Chris Boyle

Engine 94 - 18 years

"Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Boyle

Fire chief Daniel Nigro clearly thought the building could collapse. Here's why.

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

Nigro.

Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Hayden

The pictures I've seen from the site seem to support a building that was in serious damage also.

[yabasta 0]

Do you believe it was "pulled"?

If so how did they "pull" it so quickly?

If not then what is Larry talking about when he says "the decision was made to "pull it".

I also wondered if you had any explanation as to how it caught fire in the first place and then how the fire was bad enough to brign a steel building to the ground despite no plane hitting the building.

Also i am curious to know how you figure a Boeing could totally wipe out a 110 floor steel building but hardly makes a dent at the Pentagon. The Pentagon lawn didn`t even get damaged(although they still dug it up and resurfaced it).

So if you have it one way you can`t have it the other way it would seem.

[dalegg 143]

Do you believe it was "pulled"?

If so how did they "pull" it so quickly?

If not then what is Larry talking about when he says "the decision was made to "pull it".

I don't know. I quit.

[yabasta 0]

Do you believe it was "pulled"?

If so how did they "pull" it so quickly?

If not then what is Larry talking about when he says "the decision was made to "pull it".

I don't know. I quit.

Well thanks for debating me like a grown up. You made some good points and helped my critical eye stay in shape. Thanks for that.

Incidentally there is apparently goign to be a final cut of Loose Change which should be good. They listen to crriticism. There is a viewers guide online somewhere that explains it`s strenghts and weaknesses as a documentary. I will try and refind it again if anybody is interested.

[cmartyn 0]

So, if WT 7 weighed the same as a duck...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, if WT 7 weighed the same as a duck...

Or a South African swallow

[Otto 83]

So, if WT 7 weighed the same as a duck...

Or a South African swallow

It's just wrong to let a 22 page thread end with the word swallow...so how about..Déjà Vu

[Jenn! 918]