Earwicker wrote: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'?

I'm wating for the answers to these questions also, colonel panic.

I have many suspicions about the failings of our government following the attacks of 9-11 and the lack of accountability that our public administrators are held to, especially at the top of the hierarchy.

As for your second question, I agree that more investigation is needed, but I think that what caused the collapse of WTC towers 1 & 2 has been pretty much conclusively established. That is not the thing I would concentrate on.

I feel that any investigation would have to look into exactly who in the intelligence/national security community knew what, at what time, and why nothing was done about it. I want to know why reports from foreign intelligence agencies were ignored, why the FBI ignored reports from flight schools about young Arab men wanting to learn to fly commercial airliner jets but not how to take off and land. I want to know why intelligence from our own informants was ignored. I want to know why they did not act on the evidence of Al Qaeda funneling large amounts of money into an operation within US borders. I want to know why the government was so concerned with flying the Bin Ladens out of the country when they should have been interviewing them for information, as is standard investigative procedure.

Investigations usually start at the edges of a criminal operation and work toward the center.

clocker bob wrote:

eva03 wrote:Again and perhaps I can use an analogy to better illustrate my point this time. It is very hard for people to live with a lie especially one of this magnitude, cognitive dissonance is not a very pleasant experience. Do you know why Nazi officials were able to do the horrible things they did because most of them had no cognitive dissonance they believed what they were doing was right, they could sleep at night and function like normal human beings because their world was right at least in their own minds.

I'm sorry, but your analogy to Nazi germany supports my point, not yours. The conversion of ordinary Germans into supporters or uncritical servants of Naziism is the template for the conversion of ordinary americans into supporters or uncritical servants to a hoax which has birthed another genocide against 'enemies of the state', muslims for us, jews for the germans. Nazi Germany was not reformed from within, but your words here make it sound like it was:

I never said anything about ordinary citizens I said Nazi Officials as in the ones who volunteered,were officers, etc.. These people knew full well what they were doing. I wouldn't compare them to Billy Bob in lenexa, Kansas whose sole source of info comes from Cable TV. I don't think my words imply change from within at all. I think my words imply the exact opposite insofar as if these people thought what they were doing was justified what reason would they have had to change themselves.

Again Something this elaborate was completely unneccessary to carry out their campaign against the Islamic world. Did we ever stop Bombing or fucking with Iraq during the period between Gulf 1 and Gulf2 "the empire strikes yet again" How many secret campaigns has this nation waged against other nations with no widespread knowledge among the general populace? In my opinion the story you offer is such a roundabout way for this Cabal to do something they could have done anyway with a much lower risk of exposure. White people in this country by and large don't like brown people I think the record shows that. Just think would we have gone to war with France if 18 out of 19 of those hijackers were from there? Hell No! It would have been viewed as an isolated incident and aberration. Shit we didn't even bomb Saudi Arabia and that's where those hijackers were from. At the very least if it was an inside job they could have found a smaller target and some patsies from Iraq and Afghanistan since that's who they were planning to attack.

Colonel Panic wrote:There were thousands of tons of force bearing down on them in a split second's time. Of course the cores were torn apart.

You missed the point entirely. The official story is that the trusses at the side where they met the exterior columns ripped away from the exterior columns, quickly and symmetrically, allowing the caps to smash through the bases as if the floors below offered no resistance. Now, if the trusses gave way so quickly on the exterior column side, why did they grip so tightly on the core column side, pulling the core columns into sections like they were chopsticks?? Why was no spindle left standing, if the trusses were equally weak on both ends?

colonel panic wrote:You're talking like this building was a 5' tall model made of glued-together popsicle sticks or something.

I'm talking?? You jackass, here are your words from a page ago, you meathead:

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.

Idiot.

colonel panic wrote: Each tower weighed over half a million tons in building materials alone. Once a major structural failure occurs within such a huge and heavy structure, the resulting series of failures start occurring very rapidly.

So convenient for you. When you need to explain the frame of the building exploding into thousands of pieces, you compare the strength of the structure to pipecleaners. Then, when you need to explain how much force the caps have when they fall, the structure is back to being 'huge and heavy' again. Huge and heavy what? Potato chips?

colonel panic wrote:Besides, the floor trusses were only connected to the outside columns by a relatively small bracket (this was to provide flexibility to reduce lateral wind stresses) but they were cantilevered out from the core, meaning that they were anchored very firmly there.

And yet, you think that the perimeter of the towers would fall at the same symmetrical rate as the core columns, despite the inequal connections of the floor plates. That defies logic. If the core columns remained 'centered' enough to keep the caps falling straight down, then the cores should not have collapsed at all. If the cores could have been pulled off axis by the floor plates then we should have seen toppling or an asymmetric collapse.

clocker bob wrote:Maybe because the WTC was a 100+ story skyscraper built for the purpose of containing office space, and the Pentagon was a concrete bunker/fortress with 8' thick stone walls, reinforced with concrete and fortified with an insane amount of structural steel and built to withstand a nuclear war.

Built to withstand a nuclear war? Hardly. You really need to stop lying. And your brain is totally gone if your '8 foot thick stone walls' can be penetrated three rings deep by a flying aluminum skin, at the same time that it is supposedly burning in some magical fire that vaporizes titanium, !

clocker bob wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:BTW, the video I was referring to was the one that shows those kids being evacuated as the Salomon building was being demolished was a laughably obvious hoax, an inept cut & paste job.

If I posted a link to such a video, I don't remember it. I asked you to post the LINK, inside one of MY POSTS, to this video. Please do that. Until you post a link from one of my posts to that video, you're talking out your ass again.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your allegation that I posted a link to a video you claim is a hoax. Either post the link to my post, or retract your allegation.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your allegation that I posted a link to a video you claim is a hoax. Either post the link to my post, or retract your allegation.

I was going to come to your aid, Bob, but I see that you are doing just fine without me. Good show!

Colonel Panic wrote:As for your second question, I agree that more investigation is needed, but I think that what caused the collapse of WTC towers 1 & 2 has been pretty much conclusively established. That is not the thing I would concentrate on.

Who cares what you personally want to concentrate on? You are not the general of the 9/11 Truth movement. You could be in the CIA for all I know. Your conclusions about the WTC are rooted in a whole pile of misinformation about the construction of the towers and about physics, along with your total refusal to accept any eyewitness testimony or video or audio that contradicts your devotion to 'fire/gravity'. I also notice that you do not have WTC7 in the list of demolitions you are calling conclusively explained.

clocker bob wrote:I'm talking?? You jackass, here are your words from a page ago, you meathead:

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.

It was a metaphor, you dolt. Don't pretend you didn't know I was speaking literally.

I don't think that the trusses/joists/whatever that supported the floors were solely responsible for dragging down the core. It seems to me that the forces of all that heavy material tearing downward played a huge part. However, they cantilevered out from the core. That means that they were structurally connected into the core, from which most of their support came. When the huge weight of 10-20 floors or whatever came crashing down, I imagine they probably tore loose from the outer support beams and folded downward, twisting and shearing under the weight as the core itself also collapsed..

clocker bob wrote:

colonel panic wrote: Each tower weighed over half a million tons in building materials alone. Once a major structural failure occurs within such a huge and heavy structure, the resulting series of failures start occurring very rapidly.

So convenient for you. When you need to explain the frame of the building exploding into thousands of pieces, you compare the strength of the structure to pipecleaners. Then, when you need to explain how much force the caps have when they fall, the structure is back to being 'huge and heavy' again. Huge and heavy what? Potato chips?

...

Uh, OK, whatever. You seem to be so caught up in trying to refute me that you're missing the whole point of what I'm saying.

clocker bob wrote:

colonel panic wrote:Besides, the floor trusses were only connected to the outside columns by a relatively small bracket (this was to provide flexibility to reduce lateral wind stresses) but they were cantilevered out from the core, meaning that they were anchored very firmly there.

And yet, you think that the perimeter of the towers would fall at the same symmetrical rate as the core columns, despite the inequal connections of the floor plates. That defies logic. If the core columns remained 'centered' enough to keep the caps falling straight down, then the cores should not have collapsed at all. If the cores could have been pulled off axis by the floor plates then we should have seen toppling or an asymmetric collapse.

Dude, I'm not a structural engineer here. I can't say. for sure.What I can say is that the towers' collapse certainly did not look like a controlled demolition.

colonel panic wrote:Built to withstand a nuclear war? Hardly. You really need to stop lying. And your brain is totally gone if your '8 foot thick stone walls' can be penetrated three rings deep by a flying aluminum skin, at the same time that it is supposedly burning in some magical fire that vaporizes titanium, !

The Pentagon was built to withstand bombings. Maybe not nuclear war, but it has also been reinforced to withstand powerful bomb blasts.

eva03 wrote:I never said anything about ordinary citizens I said Nazi Officials as in the ones who volunteered,were officers, etc.. These people knew full well what they were doing.

Yes, of course, but are you saying that it was some mystery to the ordinary Germans what was going on when the Jews began disappearing from their towns? Did the ordinary Germans still line up behind the officers, just like the ordinary Americans have lined up behind the neo cons' mad crusade? True, popularity for the Iraq war in particular is low, but I have yet to see the tide turned to the point where we start cleaning house with trials and impeachments, fixing the history of the inside job and the manufactured intel that brought us the Iraq War, cleaning the poison out of the well. Americans still want to hate and fear muslims, they just don't like what it has cost them in Iraq in lives or in gas prices. Even if Iraq appears to be a debacle, it really isn't, because it has served as a perfect recruitmenttool for real angry Muslims. By starting a fake war against the Arab world, the NWO has generated exactly what they want: more new enemies, more defense spending. By poking that region with a stick, we've created the fission for the new perpetual war.

Americans are willing to object to that war but are still timid about attacking the virus that caused this war, just like the Germans tolerated greater and greater crimes by Hitler's crew, because they had (and we have ) a very difficult time accepting that such monsters could have come from inside our own people. It is easier to dismiss them as idiots than take them on philosophically, nazis or savage Christian killers, because we don't want to learn where the trail goes: back to us. Back to our inbred imperialist conqueror natures.

eva 03 wrote:Again Something this elaborate was completely unneccessary to carry out their campaign against the Islamic world.

Perhaps you are right that most Americans would have gone along with attacks on the Taliban or Iraq without 9/11 preceding them, but to our allies, it's a different story. To the world at large, 9/11 was supposed to make the rest of the world feel like we were justified in our campaign to pre-emptively pursue terrorists in the Middle East. 9/11 was supposed to make it a much easier sell, make us sympathetic, put on hold all the criticism that would have come if we just attacked out of suspicion and not revenge- that's the key pearl harbor element of 9/11- it made us look like the victims. Otherwise, if Bush cuts loose unprovoked, it really looks like we're just framing people to steal their resources or we're doing Israel's bidding.