eva03 wrote:People risk their lives all the time for things that are much less noble than exposing a huge crime perpatrated against their fellow countrymen by their own government. So no it isn't that hard to believe that the investigators would have spoken out even if they were under threat of *gasp* unemployment.

It's way beyond the unemployment line hanging over the head of someone who diverges from the company line. It's instant character assassination, and it's potentially life-threatening. 9/11 was not our visible government, bending the rules. 9/11 was a command performance by the elites, a demonstration of control over our democracy that bookended the JFK assassination, the curtain closing on the Cold War and then opening on the Clash of Civilizations, unleashed from their lab, the new perpetual war. The visible government is a puppet on the strings of the global central bankers and the international military industrial complex. I can't put this any more bluntly- our president and congress can only exercise power within strict parameters that are defined entirely by the globalists.

You think our FBI agents and DOJ can just flash badges and issue subpoenas and go round up the people who pulled off 9/11?? The economies and governments of the developed world are held hostage by a very insulated cabal of lawless amoral gangsters. It goes back 400 years, maybe 2000 years.

There are numerous investigators who know that 'al Qaeda, and nobody else' is total horseshit, just like anybody with a brain knew that there was no 'magic bullet' in Dealey Plaza. Who are these people supposed to petition for a corrected history? There is no authority that can be brought to bear against these people, until the masses awaken to the scam, get angry at the scam, and retaliate, and I see no chance of that happening until great economic pain is delivered to the people. And even then, when the hoaxes of endless debt and fiat currency unravel and pull the foundations out from under these mirages of economic solvency, the idiots will fall for the same con games again. They will not blame the right people. They are truly too dumb and too brainwashed to be saved.

Colonel Panic wrote:Whether the JFK assassination was a conspiracy or not, I can't say because I don't have enough evidence.

You crack me up. How many times are you going to concede that 'we don't know everything', and then immediately follow that with 'despite not knowing everything, we can stop looking'?? You should go give Gerald Posner a long and tender blowjob. Everything you think you know about the second ( and third ) shooters in Dallas is wrong.

Also, you owe me an apology for claiming that I linked to a video that was a hoax.

new york sun may 16, 2007 wrote: WASHINGTON — The former head of the Environmental Protection Agency is balking at a request by Rep. Jerrold Nadler that she testify before a congressional hearing on the federal response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA administrator at the time, has declined an invitation to appear before a House subcommittee that Mr. Nadler chairs, an aide to the congressman said yesterday. Mr. Nadler, whose district includes ground zero, is expected to ask Ms. Whitman again before considering whether to seek to compel her testimony with a subpoena, the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

Ms. Whitman has come under fire from lawmakers over the years for saying the air near ground zero was safe to breathe in the weeks following September 11.

One person who will not be asked to testify in Congress is Mayor Giuliani, who has drawn criticism in some quarters for not insisting more forcefully that workers at ground zero wear facemasks at the site. Many workers have since come down with respiratory illnesses, which studies indicate may be linked to the toxic dust at ground zero.

In the world of colonel panic, patterns of behavior that show complete contempt for human health or the law mean nothing when it comes to judging the truthfulness of their lame efforts to explain 9/11. In colonel panic world, government officials are bursting with honesty and would never be tempted to distort evidence to protect themselves or their superiors.

Clocker Bob.

Would an adequate "nutshell" of your theory (i.e., what you propose is the most probable and demonstrably plausible version of the "attacks" of September 11, 2001) be this:

"Various governments around the world and the global private sector were complicit with the people who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The event was part of a broader New World Order plan to create conditions for military operations as the initial stage of a proactive geopolitical strategy in southwestern Asia (and possibly beyond)."

If not, in 50 words or less (excluding articles and prepositions), tell me your deal. I see you always chipping away at the evidentiary trees, but I want to see the Clocker Bob forest.

Outside of your general theory, I am interested to know whether you believe that it is truly impossible, or merely improbable (you've made it clear that you don't think it's probable), that human beings executed a brilliantly conceived military plan on September 11, 2001, and that the global private sector, the U.S. government, and other governments were just being themselves -- large institutions rife with horizontal and vertical inefficiencies in communication and the ability to adjust to changed strategic modes by even acutely detected enemies. In other words, do you think it is even possible that the events of September 11, 2001, were a "Ha, we got you with that planes trick innit" score for the executioners of a slip-one-by-the-goalie type of plan?

drew patrick wrote:Clocker Bob.

Would an adequate "nutshell" of your theory (i.e., what you propose is the most probable and demonstrably plausible version of the "attacks" of September 11, 2001) be this:

"Various governments around the world and the global private sector were complicit with the people who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The event was part of a broader New World Order plan to create conditions for military operations as the initial stage of a proactive geopolitical strategy in southwestern Asia (and possibly beyond)."

Replace the boldfaced words with 'directed patsies', and that's accurate, although I have my doubts about the alleged hijackers even being on the planes or piloting them if they were aboard ( along with doubts about whether AA77 hit the Pentagon ).

Outside of your general theory, I am interested to know whether you believe that it is truly impossible, or merely improbable (you've made it clear that you don't think it's probable), that human beings executed a brilliantly conceived military plan on September 11, 2001, and that the global private sector, the U.S. government, and other governments were just being themselves -- large institutions rife with horizontal and vertical inefficiencies in communication and the ability to adjust to changed strategic modes by even acutely detected enemies. In other words, do you think it is even possible that the events of September 11, 2001, were a "Ha, we got you with that planes trick innit" score for the executioners of a slip-one-by-the-goalie type of plan.

Impossible that it happened exactly as described by the 9/11 Commission? Yes. The options trades prior to 9/11 would have been impossible to make anonymously, and it would have been impossible for them to have gone unnoticed by the CIA, which tracks the markets for suspicious activity in real time. The visas for the patsy hijackers could have maybe been luck, the ignored flight training could have maybe been luck, the patsies' absence from FAA watch lists could have maybe been luck- all those safeguards are not completely foolproof individually- but in series, they attest to orchestration from inside the visible government. That's too many dominos falling just right. Throw out chaos theory. The odds of the patsies catching every break like they did are infintesimal, in my estimation. They were directed by people who could clear barriers for them, from within our security apparatus.

There is no doubt that Dick Cheney took an active role in the murder of over 3000 Americans and no doubt that Bush signed on for the cover up that afternoon- during the morning of 9/11, Bush might have been caught off guard by what was transpiring.

So Mr Panic - is your answer to this question:

Now - it is possible (though I don't think probable) that all of this was just some criminaly negligent mistake but given that no one has been fired or held to account for it does it not raise your suspicions even one iota?

'No'?

and this one:

I'm not asking you to say - 'the government planted bombs' but I am asking you to admit that there are grounds for a proper (unobstructed) independent investigation that does not rule out the possibility of explosives given that - here it is again - no buildings like those three (steel structured) EVER fell down due to fire before?

'No, there is no need for such an investigation'?

hey, bob, there's a place where you can start your own messageboard for free.

go start a 9/11 one.

Colonel Panic wrote:

Skronk wrote:Let's clear the air (no pun intended) The title of this thread is "So you say petroleum fires can't melt steel?".

No one is saying they can't melt steel, but that the fire in the towers never reached a high enough temperature. Case closed.

Case closed?!? You haven't offered one single iota of evidence that definitively proves what the temperature was around the central support columns inside the WTC towers.

I missed this the first time around. That's hilarious. Proving that the support columns of the WTC were compromised by heat is a critical part of the official myth, and yet, Colonel Panic is demanding that Skronk has to prove what the temperatures weren't! That is wild. CP, don't you think you need to prove what the temps were, to support YOUR theory of how the buildings fell?

colonel panic wrote:BTW, Skronk, from what school did you obtain your degree in mechanical engineering?

That's a good one, too. CP is allowed to remain in this thread without a degree in engineering. CB and skronk are not.

Where have you ever read a single line written by me that says people should stop investigating or stop asking questions? I never said that. Nor did I say that I was reluctant to accept alternative investigations.

What I'm reluctant to accept is the silly theory that the US government wanted to justify waging war on Iraq, so they planted explosives in the WTC towers, then crashed planes into them, then detonated the explosives, then blamed the innocent Muslim extremists groups who have been known to export terrorism worldwide for decades now. I mean if the evil US government was already going that far, why didn't they just go balls-out and pilot a few of their captured UFOs over NYC as well, and shoot at the buildings with their antimatter rays, just to make it really convincing? Then Saddam could be cast as a loyal servant of the tyrannical Omicronian Overlord, and there would be no way any nation on Earth could refuse to ally themselves with us!

You gave photographic evidence gleaned from news reports (from the very same media sources that you yourself claim are untrustworthy government-controlled mouthpieces, BTW) that was supposed to support your claim that explosives and/or incendiaries were used, and I refuted that evidence with what seems to me to be sound reasoning. I showed video that illustrates the "squibs"--as you call them--were really windows blowing out due to pressure. I played audio from inside the towers at the time of collapse, and no explosions are heard in that audio. I gave links to a website where a chemist explains the chemical composition of thermate--inconsistent with Professor Steven E. Jones' chemical analysis. The same chemist goes on to claim that contamination of the metal samples from gypsum drywall could give the same results as found by Prof. Jones.

You say that the buildings coming down as a result of the crashes is a "lie." You say it's a "lie" that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel supports enough for a collapse. You say that there couldn't have been enough heat trapped at the bottom of the rubble to melt steel. You say that Al Qaeda is not real, it's a front for a US government plot. You say that there's a global conspiracy running the world that dates back to ancient times. But for all these claims and accusations, you provide ZERO positive evidence or proof, only conjecture and speculation. Add to this the unsubstantiated accusation that the entire NIST report was dictated by the federal government in a vast conspiracy to cover its tracks, and that's the whole of your argument.

You're going to have to come up with some solid evidence to convince me that the WTC was brought down by explosives. So far I haven't seen anything that even comes close to proving that. Anyone with any kind of experience in critical analysis would demand as much.

I have seen buildings demolished before, and the only similarity between a controlled demolition and the fall of the 2 WTC towers was that in both cases the buildings started out vertical and ended up on the ground. WTC 7, to be sure, looks for all the world like a controlled demolition. The way it collapsed is identical to the way a controlled shot looks, with the supports being blown out and then the entire building dropping and folding down on itself. I'll give you that. But the two towers look like they collapsed from the upper floors down, each floor being pulverized as the collapse progresses.

Moreover, most structural engineers and scientists seem to agree, and I don't have the math, physics, metallurgy, chemistry or engineering knowledge to effectively debate the issue with those guys.

Believe me, it's the conspiracy theorists themselves who are the laughingstocks. No offense, I hope.

Colonel Panic wrote:The WTC towers were not homogeneous structures. They were more like a stack of 100 dinner plates made of a very heavy, yet fragile and crumbly material, and held together by pipecleaners.

So the towers were ceramic platters stacked on thin wires??? Were there any paper clips or bungee cords used? Could you find that out for me?

Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.

The World Trade Center project in lower Manhattan last week entered a new phase of construction. A crane placed the first of 76 huge steel columns, shaped like short-handled pitch-forks, that will transfer the load of 101 stories of office space to the substructure. The four-story columns are the largest structural components of the project's twin 110-story towers.

CP has been lying throughout this thread about the composition of the floor decks.

On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking.

CP lied about the weight of the towers and the size of the core columns.

Into the towers rising from the excavation are going some 200,000 pieces of steel having a total weight of about 200,000 tons (about 1/5 of the total weight of the structures). Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.

CP and Gramsci have been lying about the load bearing responsibilities of the exterior and interior columns.

For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.

A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.

Walls resist wind. In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind. Each tower will act as a vertical, cantilevered hollow tube.

This is probably where mental patients and shills like Gramsci stopped reading, if they read anything about the towers. Gramsci, in May 2007, was still operating under the false assumption that the towers were hollow tubes. Gramsci, in May 2007, thought that the exterior columns were the only load bearing columns in the buildings! Gramsci, if he could be bothered to read and not just pour more arrogance and deluded bias into his gas tank, could have corrected his mistaken ideas about the WTC designs years ago- but that would have violated the established Gramsci method.

The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind, and most of the overturning moment will be taken by the exterior walls normal to the wind. For economy in resisting the stresses, the wall columns will be made of high-strength steels, as indicated in the diagram above.

What's really funny is that tube within a tube skyscrapers continue to be built, and continue to be occupied by tenants. In demented Gramsci world, buildings like these are dangerous designs, and should be abandoned. THAT ISN'T HAPPENING. Why aren't the owners of buildings with similar designs to the WTC evacuating them and closing them, as Gramsci would argue needs to be done? They're ticking time bombs, according to Gramsci: "one poke, and down they go".


AMOCO building in Chicago. Tubular construction. It's unusable, according to Gramsci.

It's your argument that's held together with bungee cords and paper clips, Bob.

And YouTube. Lots and lots of YouTube.