On 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

I’m no expert on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I it seems the two reasons most people buy into them, aside from the erroneous claims in videos like “loose change”, is the question of a) why did building number 7 collapse even though it wasn’t hit by a plane, and b) why was there no wreckage of the flight that crashed like we see in airplane crash photos, big chunks of planes etc.

I will answer both, briefly.

Building number 7 collapsed because like many nearby buildings it was totally trashed by the debris from the twin towers falling.  When they collapsed they didn’t just drop pretty little powder or tiny rocks of debris like it looked like in all those far-away photos.  They dropped multi-ton debris which devestated nearby buildings.

Here is a nearby building that was hit by just one chunk of debris:

Here is WTC 6:

Now WTC 6 never got hit by a plane, but would anyone be surprised if it caught fire or collapsed?

How did the fire start?  Well nobody knows for sure, which is true in many fires.  It could have easily started via damage the the electrical system or gas heating system if there was one.  Or simple physics – it takes only a spark’s worth of energy to cause a fire when there’s combustible fuel around (which there was, the fire was fueled by the emergency generators which kept pumping fuel into the fire for hours) and kinetic energy easily translates into heat energy on impact.  If you don’t get what I’m saying think of metal hitting metal and making sparks, or hammering a nail into wood and then pulling it out and it being very hot to the touch.  Only when you’re talking about these kind of weights hitting at these speeds, it can be enough to melt metal.

So yeah, WTC 7 collapsed, not surprisingly.  Other nearby buildings had to be demolished.

Another bit of the conspiracy theory regarding WTC 7 is a clip played in these conspiracy videos of the guy who owned the building saying he told them to “pull it”, and claiming “pull” means demolish.  When you look at the clip in it’s actual context however, he is saying he told the fire department to pull the fire support from the building because it wasn’t worth it, the building was shot.  So they pulled it (the fire support) and the building collapsed some time later.

This one’s total bullshit, deceptive editing.  The video is on youtube, the cut and uncut versions.  I would post them but I’m lazy : D

But moving on… why was there no airplane debris?

Well when an airplane tries to land normally and crashes you see something with big chunks of plane in it.

Why is there less damage?  Because of the PILOT.  Because the pilot tried to land the plane, not let it spiral into the ground from 50,000 feet, going so fast the wings get ripped off at high altitude.  Why did the impact look more like a missile than a plane crash?  Because by that point the PLANE was more like a missile than a plane.

Ironically, if there were the type of wreckage you would imagine, conspiracy theorists would claim it had been faked because a plane dropping from that altitude “wouldn’t look like an ordinary plane crash!”

I hope that does away with these conspiracy theories for some of you with a lingering sense that they might be true.

Now does this mean that the response was not inept?  Or that our leaders didn’t know something was coming and do nothing?  Or that the then-commander-in-chief of the armed forces wasn’t a flipping MORON for sitting reading a childrens’ book for the better part of ten minutes after hearing that the country was under attack?

No, it doesn’t mean any of that.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to On 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

  1. The conspiracy theories are what doesn’t make sense.  The buildings came down because a very large aircraft ran right in the middle of them.  Those aircraft still had a ton of full in them.  People are mixing up normal fire with fire from jetfuel.  Jetfuel fire is more difficult to put out.  There is a reason why they have firetrucks at airports even though there are rarely accidents at airports.  The reason is that jetfuel creates a different type of fire.

  2. twosidedme says:

    So it was a Class Bravo fire that started it that turned into a Class Alpha, but by that time it was too big ton contain.

  3. agnophilo says:

    @TheTheologiansCafe – Yup.  Not to mention the heat shielding on the beams is designed to resist heat, not airplane impacts.

  4. I’m going to guess the fire started from the tons of gallons of jet fuel. Just a hunch.

  5. agnophilo says:

    @ElliottStrange – Building number 7, not the twin towers.

  6. @agnophilo – Not hard for a fire to spread once it has started. Just ask California. 

  7. Casbahmaniac says:

    They explained it all on extreme engineering, It took a perfect storm of shit to happen for the towers to fall. No inside job necessary. The firefighters commented on their dislike of trusses being used in major construction in regards to skyscrapers. The outside of the building was the frame and the floors held in place by the outside. Once the outside was compromised by structural damage and heat, the floors all came down and the building fell. It looked like a demo, but it wasn’t. So, the conspiracy theorists ran with it. For some people, the truth is just to easy to understand.

  8. rhinosaur767 says:

    Another popular point for 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that burning jet fuel isn’t hot enough to melt steel. But, on a show debunking that, an engineer explained that at those temperatures, steel loses half it’s load bearing capacity. All that needs happen is for the steel to bend, shifting the weight and then the whole thing comes down, floor on floor with more and more weight the closer to the ground it gets.And the “but but but it looks just like a controlled demolition!” claim is bunk, too. Perhaps that’s how buildings look when they collapse? How often has anyone seen multi-story buildings collapsing on their own to say it’s not just that?Also, I read, I believe in Skeptic magazine, that the original claims of conspiracy from “Loose Change” would have involved 800,000 people. How likely is it that the better part of 1 million people could keep such a secret?

  9. agnophilo says:

    @ElliottStrange – Yeah really.@Casbahmaniac – Yeah, as if it wouldn’t have been devastating if the buildings hadn’t collapsed.@rhinosaur767 – Yup.  Also as I mentioned the coating on the beams to make them heat resistent would have gone when the planes smashed into them.

  10. just tell em to talk to the families of the deceased.

  11. BobRichter says:

    I think the biggest problem with the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is that they distract from how badly the real Bush administration really did mishandle al qaeda and warnings of the attacks beginning at day one of his presidency and how much power they gained in the aftermath. The question of complicity isn’t about planes vs explosives. The question of complicity is just a matter of incompetence vs evil.

  12. agnophilo says:

    @Chinese_Sait0u – No offense, but that’s a horrible idea.@BobRichter – I agree.

  13. noree_n says:

    AAAAAaaaaah!I just accept it as it is -_-

  14. gene546 says:

    Since you claim to know Physics; from this point of view and the way that the both building tumble straight down, they don’t fit into the law of physics. Added to this, the wings of the planes were outside of the buildings, and you must be aware that the wings of the airplanes carried the fuel; than the planes’ fuel don’t at up to the total sum of claims for the towers to collapse. Do am I a conspiracy theorist? No, but there are some obscure facts about 9/11, that should see the light; so as to clear up any conspiracy they have created a lot of debates   and cause of disunity amongst the “we the people.” Gene546

  15. agnophilo says:

    @gene546@revelife – One of the laws of physics is the law of gravitation, that says things fall down.  How is that “outside of the laws of physics”?  And the plane’s wings were not “outside of the building”, the building covered the plane’s wingspan.  Don’t you even remember the footage they played endlessly of the buildings’ collapse?Here is a reminder.

  16. gene546 says:

    You’re right; but a fact remained uncontested, and the way they the towers collapse. Added to this the amount of fuel does not added up to melt all the steel of the towers. As for the law of gravity, things the fall down sometimes don’t fallow a straight free fall; especially in earth do to other interfering factors: wind, the velocity of the plane etc… gene546

  17. agnophilo says:

    @gene546 – The “velocity of the plane” comment makes no sense, and the rest has been addressed in the comments and blog already.

  18. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – Does the Math are correct? To accomplish for the total melt down of the steel; they don’t add up, this is my thesis against you argument: 40,000 kerosene gallons don’t melt a building of that size. As for the falling objects in space they fallow a straight line (ω= angular velocity), only if an external force don’t interfere with the moving object. Gene546

  19. agnophilo says:

    @gene546 – Metal doesn’t have to liquify to lose it’s integrity, and the heat shielding on the beams would have been destroyed by the impact, which it wasn’t designed for.Again, this has been covered.

  20. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – Right after the fall of the twin towers, his designer was interviewed by CBS and comments that “the towers were built to resist or to absorb the energy released by the impact of any kind of airplane.” But my point of contention is that the towers fallowed a straight down path; almost perfect, and as I had said the 40,000 gallons of kerosene were consumed by the explosion at the time of the impact. Gene546

  21. agnophilo says:

    @gene546 – Yes, they went almost straight down, almost as if some powerful force was pulling them in that direction…But to look at this logically for a moment, you cannot prove that something extraordinary happened by arguing that it’s possible to have happened.  You need evidence.  Even if I granted that it was impossible for an airplane impact and 40,000 galons of fuel and a raging fire to make a building lose structural integrity (which I don’t), that still wouldn’t mean that george bush rigged it with explosives.  It could mean that the building was improperly made, for example.But the “loose change” etc videos are definitely bullshit.  They claim there were explosive charges because “debris” from the building falls off several floors below the part of the building that is collapsing, when closer video shows that the “debris” is PEOPLE jumping out of the building as it collapses.

  22. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – 40,000 gallons are not sufficient to destroy a building with over hundred floors.  Gene546

  23. agnophilo says:

    @gene546 – The amount of fuel is irrelevant.  A frigging plane smashed into the building and any fire produces intense heat, whether it is fueled by kerosene or not, which will further harm the integrity of the building.  Not to mention that this blog isn’t even about the twin towers.

  24. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – Probably, you’re totally right. Let it be so that way ends.Gene546

  25. Never mind that Dan Rather said himself the building was wired for demolition. Never mind that Larry Silverstein gave the order to “pull” the building.(confessed) Never mind that the media—who we all know doesn’t run from talking points –announced 20 minutes minutes early that the building had collapsed. Never mind that all protocol in law enforcement demands a crime scene investigation, yet all the rubble was hauled away within days and sent over seas to be melted down–or to build a ship–or some freaking nonsense. Never mind that 6 out of 10 men from the 9/11 commission demand a fully funded new investigation and have come forward to whistle blow. Never mind again that hundreds upon hundreds of professionals with immpecable credentials are behind the 9/11 conspiracy theroies…such a SIbel Edmunds who was an FBI translator who broke her gag order and lost her job to come forward only to have the “states secrets priviledge”  silence her testimony. Former heads of FBI, appointed by both era’s of BUSH Sr and Jr. Former heads of the CIA..not to mention military personnel with ranks so high that the media is scared to mention their names. Maybe it would lend too much credibilty…can’t have that can we? You can say whatever you will, but it absolutely kills me when someone who doesn’t know much of the “conspiracy” relegates those around him who do, to some nut cases, while the truth that remains is this —–> the families want another investigation. PERIOD. One that is fully funded, and one that compells the white house oficials to testify, instead of dodging it with executive priviledge. Lastly–why is Osama’s name not on the FBI’s most wanted list for 9/11 crimes? Why has he never been formally indicted in this country for 9/11? Why when we have already declassified false flag operations like Operation Northwoods, in which all the joints chief’s of staff signed off on a plot to blow up American planes and kill American citizens in the process and blame Cuba, as a pretext to invade Cuba, do you not think it could happen again? After all, we were all told plainly that we were going into Iraq–to invade Iraq because of 9/11 terrorism…yet later the White House totally lied and said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and never linked it together. Can you answer those questions? I’ve got lots more if you wanna debate facts with me. Let me know if your up for it GEE all these things the media just doesn;t talk about–despite hundreds of attempts for air time to discuss these FACTS and more with the theorists themselves, like Edmunds, Louis Freeh, etc.etc.etc., all the govt officials and military who are willing to discuss the facts. I guess it’s easier for a professional journalist to call people “pin heads” and rebuff them to the stupid zone instead of actually reporting the truth of who the “theorists” are. No, a higher education doesn’t demand logic…it only demands talking points repeated over and over. Makes you wonder what there is to hide when a debate is not possible does it not?Seriously though…you of all people should be willing to investigate fully. Turn off the tube and get out of the media spin. You’re too smart for that

  26. agnophilo says:

    @ShamelesslyRed –  “Nevermind that Dan Rather said himself the building was wired fordemolition.” I looked into this claim and it doesn’t appear that he did.”Never mind that Larry Silverstein gave the order to “pull”the building.(confessed)”Never happened.  That “pull” means demolish a building is something invented by the loose change people, the video is taken out of context and when you actually watch the video and listen to what he’s saying and ignore the commentary it’s very clear he’s saying that he told the fire department to pull the fire support from the building and not try to save it, and then that some time later it collapsed.  The fire department does not blow up burning buildings.  They put out fires.It’s a really, really stupid claim if you stop and think about it.  “Never mind that the media—who we all knowdoesn’t run from talking points –announced20 minutes minutes early that the building had collapsed.” In the confusion around 9/11 they announced a lot of things that weren’t true.  Are you saying that the CIA or military or whoever blew up the buildings in secret but accidentally told the news about it 20 minutes before it happened?  Exactly how would that be possible given your conspiracy theory?”Never mindthat all protocol in law enforcement demands a crime sceneinvestigation, yet all the rubble was hauled away within days and sentover seas to be melted down–or to build a ship–or some freakingnonsense.” That’s what is done with hundreds of tons of scrap metal.”Never mind that 6 out of 10 men from the 9/11 commissiondemand a fully funded new investigation and have come forward towhistle blow. Never mind again that hundreds upon hundreds ofprofessionals with immpecable credentials are behind the 9/11conspiracy theroies…”If a thousand people say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing.  It matters not at all how popular an idea or claim is, it has no bearing on it’s truth or falsehood.  And hundreds of historians maintain that the holocaust never took place.  It means nothing without evidence.”such a SIbel Edmunds who was an FBI translatorwho broke her gag order and lost her job to come forward only to havethe “states secrets priviledge”  silence her testimony.” And she said what?”Former heads ofFBI, appointed by both era’s of BUSH Sr and Jr. Former heads of theCIA..not to mention military personnel with ranks so high that themedia is scared to mention their names. Maybe it would lend too muchcredibilty…can’t have that can we?”What?Evidence.  I want evidence.”You can say whatever you will, butit absolutely kills me when someone who doesn’t know much of the”conspiracy” relegates those around him who do, to some nut cases, while the truth that remains is this —–> the families wantanother investigation. PERIOD. One that is fully funded, and one thatcompells the white house oficials to testify, instead of dodging itwith executive priviledge.” This is not evidence, this is an absense of evidence presented as evidence.”Lastly–why is Osama’s name not on the FBI’smost wanted list for 9/11 crimes?” Because he is not now, nor will he ever be in their jurisdiction?  It would make as much sense to put kim jong il on their most wanted list.  Wouldn’t do any possible good.  The point of the list is to publicize the faces of criminals in order to generate tips.”Why has he never been formallyindicted in this country for 9/11?” Because he has never been apprehended in this country for anything.  Arrest>indictment, trial>verdict.”Why when we have alreadydeclassified false flag operations like Operation Northwoods, in whichall the joints chief’s of staff signed off on a plot to blow upAmerican planes and kill American citizens in the process and blameCuba, as a pretext to invade Cuba, do you not think it could happenagain? After all, we were all told plainly that we were going intoIraq–to invade Iraq because of 9/11 terrorism…yet later the WhiteHouse totally lied and said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and neverlinked it together. Can you answer those questions? I’ve got lots moreif you wanna debate facts with me. Let me know if your up for it”First off, operation northwoods proposed faking american and cuban deaths, not killing people.  And yes it was horrible.  So were the nuclear tests done on soldiers. That doesn’t prove who killed kennedy or that elvis is still alive.  It has nothing to do with your claim.”GEEall these things the media just doesn;t talk about–despite hundreds ofattempts for air time to discuss these FACTS. I guess it’s easier for aproffesional journalist to call people “pin heads” and rebuff them tothe stupid zone instead of actually reporting the truth of who the”theorists” are. No, a higher education doesn’t demand logic…it onlydemands talking points repeated over and over.”I’m no fan of oreilly or the constant-spin zone, but you have yet to support your position with evidence.  And btw the “media” has talked about it, it just took awhile.  There have been documentaries and shows debunking 9/11 myths, and skeptic magazine devoted a whole issue to them.  Those are just the ones I’ve heard about.”Seriouslythough…you of all people should be willing to investigate fully. Turnoff the tube and get out of the media spin. You’re too smart for that”Support your claims with evidence and I will agree with you easily.

  27. I looked into this claim and it doesn’t appear that he did.–yes, it’s on tape..on video. That “pull” means demolish a building issomething invented by the loose change people, the video is taken outof context and when you actually watch the video and listen to whathe’s saying and ignore the commentary it’s very clear he’s saying thathe told the fire department to pull the fire support from the buildingand not try to save it, and then that some time later it collapsed. The fire department does not blow up burning buildings.  They put outfires….NO. “pulling a building” is a term that has been used for years, and years. I’ve never seen “loose change”. I’ll look into it. I’ve seen Silverstein in the original tape. Which one are you looking at? That’s what is done with hundreds of tons of scrap metal.. Not when it comes to the largest terrorist act in this country. If a thousand people say a foolish thing itis still a foolish thing.  It matters not at all how popular an idea orclaim is, it has no bearing on it’s truth or falsehood.  And hundredsof historians maintain that the holocaust never took place.  It meansnothing without evidence.. True. But those “historians” never documented the holocaust or lived through it either as a matter of their own national priority as citizens.Because he has never been apprehended in this country for anything.  Arrest>indictment, trial>verdict.Because he is not now, nor will he ever bein their jurisdiction?  It would make as much sense to put kim jong ilon their most wanted list.  Wouldn’t do any possible good.  The pointof the list is to publicize the faces of criminals in order to generatetips. First. —you can indict a terrorist, or anyone else accused of a crime without them being physically present. The point is the evidence…there is none. It’s the same reason his other crimes are listed on the FBI’s most wanted poster, but not 9/11. Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” That doesn’t prove who killed kennedy or that elvis is still alive.  It has nothing to do with your claim. First..I don’t think Elvis is still alive, and I thought who had killed Kennedy had been established. Northwoods has everything to do with my claim. And yes, they had prepared for American casualties. Two years ago MSNBC and Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney had plotted another false flag involving our military staged to be fired upon by our own military, but this time it would “Iranians” who would be blamed for the attack.–why? as a pretext to invade Iran. More false flags–> http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflagIt would take all day to go through the evidence..weeks. I don’t have all the answers. I never claimed to have them. I’ve spent 4 years investigating the claims of the govt., the 9/11 report, NIST, etc etc…there are too many unanswered questions, too many absurdities. The evidence the govt presented is weak. Which is why no prosecuting attny will indict BinLaden. SIbel Edmunds: Can testify to our govt’s relations with Osama Bin Laden all the way up until 9/11. Look her up.As far as the other men/women I listed…http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreportarchitects and engineers by the thousands http://www.ae911truth.org/http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.htmlPilots and aviation experts:  And the questions go on. A new investigation is what truthers want. It’s what families of 9/11 want. It’s what everyone who is involved with this movement wants. Why should they not have it? pardon my typos…I’m dealing with 3 kids while trying to complete some work here at my computer…it’s a little hectic

  28. @agnophilo – My mistake–it was Peter Jennings, and he compared it to controlled demolition as he did with the first fallen tower. I’ll link one, and the other can be found on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lAHe also interviewed a woman who was an employee of the Twin Towers who was blown out of a sub level basement–before the tower fell of course.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP–wz0 She’s not the only one. There were many employees who were burned beyond recognition in the sub level basements by explosions. Yet there was no explosives involved? How does one explain that logically? These people and their testimony were completely excluded in the final 9/11 report.

  29. agnophilo says:

    @ShamelesslyRed –  First.—you can indict a terrorist, or anyone else accused of a crimewithout them being physically present. The point is theevidence…there is none. It’s the same reason his other crimes arelisted on the FBI’s most wanted poster, but not 9/11. Rex Tomb, “I looked into this claim and it doesn’t appear that he did.–yes, it’s on tape..on video.”No, it’s really not.”NO.”pulling a building” is a term that has been used for years, and years.” No, it isn’t.  9/11 conspiracy theorists just blindly believe it is.  And you didn’t address the fact that the fire department does not carry around copious amounts of high explosives to blow up burning buildings, and even if they did it would be completely impossible to do an impromptu demolition.  Actual demolitions take weeks of planning and preparation to set up.”I’ve never seen “loose change”. I’ll look into it. I’ve seenSilverstein in the original tape. Which one are you looking at?”The same one, presumably.[That’s what is done with hundreds of tons of scrap metal..] “Not when it comes to the largest terrorist act in this country.”Apparently it is.”True. But those “historians” never documented the holocaust or livedthrough it either as a matter of their own national priority ascitizens.”We have film reels of the death camps, tens of thousands of photographs and millions of eye witness accounts.  Hundreds of historians still maintain it never happened.”Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” That is stupid.  Videotaped confessions aren’t hard evidence?  Of course I guess they might not be since terrorist groups tend to take credit for attacks whether or not they were responsible.First..Idon’t think Elvis is still alive, and I thought who had killed Kennedyhad been established.” You’d think so, but some don’t think so…”Northwoods has everything to do with my claim.” No, it doesn’t.  Establishing one crime occurred does not prove that another one did.”And yes, they had prepared for American casualties.” I read the content of the proposal, it didn’t involve killing any americans, only faking their deaths.”Two years ago MSNBCand Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney had plotted another false flaginvolving our military staged to be fired upon by our own military, butthis time it would “Iranians” who would be blamed for the attack.–why?as a pretext to invade Iran. More false flags–> http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag“Um, source for this please?”Itwould take all day to go through the evidence..weeks. I don’t have allthe answers. I never claimed to have them.”How about any evidence that is actually compelling?”I’ve spent 4 yearsinvestigating the claims of the govt., the 9/11 report, NIST, etcetc…there are too many unanswered questions, too many absurdities.The evidence the govt presented is weak. Which is why no prosecutingattny will indict BinLaden.”The evidence you’ve presented is weak.  In some cases even fictional.  And again they’re not going after someone they know is not in the country.  Why waste time and resources?If your claims are right, that means the FBI is in on it too.  Do you really think that?”Andthe questions go on.” I skipped over the list of people who believe it was a planned demolition etc.  That is not evidence.”A new investigation is what truthers want. It’swhat families of 9/11 want. It’s what everyone who is involved withthis movement wants. Why should they not have it?”Haven’t there been multiple independent and official investigations?”pardon my typos…I’m dealing with 3 kids while trying to complete some work here at my computer…it’s a little hectic”No worries.

  30. agnophilo says:

    @ShamelesslyRed – “My mistake–it was Peter Jennings, and hecompared it to controlled demolition as he did with the first fallentower. I’ll link one, and the other can be found on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA“Actually that is the video I found of him not saying what you’re claiming he said.  Nowhere does he say it was a planned demolition, he says once soon after the collapse that he doesn’t know whether it collapsed as a result of the attacks or was demolished.  He’s hardly a “truther”.”Healso interviewed a woman who was an employee of the Twin Towers who wasblown out of a sub level basement–before the tower fell of course.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP–wz0″This is like the third or 4th time you’ve misrepresented evidence so far.  She didn’t say there was an explosion in the basement, she said the elevator she was in was knocked down to the sub-levels and then presumably the safety breaks kicked in and she was injured but got out of the building.  There WAS an explosion, when a big fucking plane smashed into a sky scraper and ignited a few tons of jet fuel.  You might remember it.That btw is why the thousands of people who saw the second plane hit from the opposite side who only saw a fireball come out of the building reported that the building had been bombed.”She’snot the only one. There were many employees who were burned beyondrecognition in the sub level basements by explosions. Yet there was noexplosives involved? How does one explain that logically? These peopleand their testimony were completely excluded in the final 9/11 report.”If the other “witnesses” are as supportive of your position as this one I can see why.

  31. The point that I’m making, is that the 9/11 commission’s report is full of holes and absurdities. As far as the govt doing the job? I beleive that it was complicit. Our complete defense systems were completely incapable of responding on that one day, when they had carried out numerous intercepts in the months prior. There are too many questions left to be answered. Hersh’s exclusive storyKeith Olberman’s worst person section. here.William rodriguez who was honored by Bush for rescuing more than 100 people. He survived the fall of the tower and was buried in the rubble. A twenty year employee, supervisor of the lower levels…listen to his testimony about the explosions in the lower level before the first plane hit

    Marlene Cruz herself interviewed says that she was on a freight elevator going upward. She had only cleared a few floors when the elevator doors “blew out”. It then dropped and caught between two floors in the basement. Which cooberates the other employees who suffered injuries from the same the lower sub levels.

  32. @agnophilo – http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/2007/03/case-for-explosives-at-world-trade.htmlA passport from a hijacker was found outside of the WTC completely unscathed as if it had been just issued. 911 myth site says ” why not, explosions are unpredictable?” FBI and CIA officials have come forward to prove how this is a tactic used in intelligence quite often to arrest suspected terrorists etc. That site is crap. I looked into the thermite found in more 13 sample from WTC dust, independently studied and tested by chemists and geologists who have proved active thermite in the dust. Yet this site weakly makes an effort to debunk it.  There is no blindness like wrapping the flag around your eyes. I wonder how any rational person can look at WTC 7 and say anything other than it was brought down. It’s as if because someone told you what to beleive—then it’s believable. It’s like church–kinda Btw– I wan’t calling you irrational–just saying people in general

  33. agnophilo says:

    @ShamelesslyRed – “The point that I’m making, is that the9/11 commission’s report is full of holes and absurdities. As far asthe govt doing the job? I beleive that it was complicit. Our completedefense systems were completely incapable of responding on that oneday, when they had carried out numerous intercepts in the months prior.There are too many questions left to be answered.”Saying there are questions left unanswered is fine.  But you’re making direct claims which you cannot support.”Keith Olberman’s worst person section. here.”Why?“Williamrodriguez who was honored by Bush for rescuing more than 100 people. Hesurvived the fall of the tower and was buried in the rubble. A twentyyear employee, supervisor of the lower levels…listen to his testimonyabout the explosions in the lower level before the first plane hit

    Actually this is more bullshit.  “the plane hit and then there was a series of explosions afterwards” is turned into (quoting from the description) “he talked about explosions in the basement, before the plane hit”.  He said someone who had been burned ran into an office and he helped them get out of the building.  He didn’t say that a bomb exploded in the basement before the planes hit, and he actually said the exact opposite.Why do you feel the need to lie to support your position?“MarleneCruz herself interviewed says that she was on a freight elevator goingupward. She had only cleared a few floors when the elevator doors “blewout”. It then dropped and caught between two floors in the basement.Which cooberates the other employees who suffered injuries from thesame the lower sub levels.”All of your other supposed witness testimony has been misleading, I have no hope that this is any different.

  34. agnophilo says:

    @ShamelesslyRed – Did you even read the section of my blog about building 7?  So far as the rest it’s debunking someone else’s arguments about something we’re not even talking about.

  35. Yes. I did read it. However if you look at the footage of WTC 7, it was in remarkably good shape,  in comparison to the other towers of course. For 7 to collapse (not hit by a plane) the way it did, in the very exact same way the towers collapsed that were hit by planes, then one would have to only assume illogically that all the supporting beams and internal support mechanisms gave way at the exact same time under completely different, and extremely less traumatic circumstances for it to fall at free fall speed into it’s own print, all caused by debris damage. This is impossible, and it’s been proven again and again. Notice that WTC 6 was in worse condition than 7, and never collapsed at free fall speed. 

  36. agnophilo says:

    @ShamelesslyRed – No, it was not in “remarkably good shape”  The first 18 floors were gutted by the expanding debris from the twin towers and one corner of the base of the building was totally gone.Link.Not to mention it was burning uncontrollably for hours.It wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was hit by many tons of high velocity debris which might as well have been in the form of an airplane.They show you the building from an angle that makes it look like it was a big solid square building, but actually it was a tall, thin building (link).  Engulfed in flames for hours with a big chunk of it’s bottom structure missing and god knows what other support beams taken out inside.Don’t act like it’s totally impossible that it could have collapsed on it’s own.So far as the idea that it collapsed “all at once” that is how it works when many tons of concrete and steel bound together starts to move.  We’re not talking about a jenga tower or a house of cards here.

  37. @agnophilo – No one, not NIST, not the final report can address adequately why building 7 collapsed at free fall speed. To imply that every single internal support structure gave way at the exact same time, from fire and debris damage is absurd on it’s face. Any professional would expect it to possibly lean, fall in from the part that damaged the most…but to implode on it’s on print at free fall speed? NO WAY.  No computer model can replicate it, no professional engineer can explain it, and as a firefighter along with all of the other fire fighters who were there, know that it’s impossible.3 towers. 2 hit by planes. But all fell in the exact same way.For anyone who has no career experience or expertise in mechanics, physics, firefighting, engineering, I would still expect the dry cleaner to question that hypothesis. For those of us with some professional experience, there is no other conclusion but to call it BS. Which would probably explain why hundreds of thousands of individuals with immpecable credentials are involved in the 9/11 truth movement

  38. agnophilo says:

    @ShamelesslyRed – Argument from ignorance, argument from popularity.Both standard logical fallacies.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s