I am suggesting that you are conflating government practice and competence with a well run military operation. They are not the same.

But, it's mind-boggling that could have happened with so much advance warning. Perhaps some of the coverup is simply to avoid showing how terribly negligent and disfunctional our government and military were that day.

WT-7 remains problematic for me. That building fell way too symetrically to have been exposed to fire from one side only. Then there's the video of it's owner saying quite clearly, pull the building.

Mike Ruppert's investigation, although flawed, goes where others don't. He gets into the why. Things like $2.3 TRILLION missing from the pentagon budget. Proceeds from the sale of illegal narcotics being funneled back into the "legitimate" economy through "legitimate" corporations and Wall Street banks. Records of this all gone in a giant puff of smoke.

I did inhale.

I recently met a man, a marine officer, that was in the Pentagon when the building was hit. He says he heard the engines of a plane at full throttle before the plane hit the building.

The plane and the passengers in it are gone.

I am told there are eye-witnesses to the event. Seems like they should have testified in a court of law to calm some of the speculation going on.

Why haven't they been?

Recently, Jesse Ventura did a piece for his conspiracy show that indicates that the hijackers entered the cockpit of the first plane to hit the twin towers, BEFORE IT TOOK OFF. So much for the we didn't have time to react drivel if this proves to be true.

If no one in our government has anything to hide, it's their own fault that conspiracy theories abound. We needed an open and transparent viewing of the evidence and we didn't get it.

I did inhale.

"But, it's mind-boggling that could have happened with so much advance warning. Perhaps some of the coverup is simply to avoid showing how terribly negligent and dysfunctional our government and military were that day."

Mind-boggling? The official narrative has Cheney being picked up and carried down to the situation room 5 minutes or so before the plane hits the Pentagon. There are two witnesses (Richard Clarke and Norman Minetta) who place Cheney in the room 30 minutes (at least) before the plane hit. This what Minetta said which is also mind-boggling. Cheney was tracking the plane into Washington, D.C. with some kind of plan in place. Minetta's testimony is confusing to be sure with no efforts to clarify.

I have read (but cannot confirm) that the Pentagon has upwards of 50 security cameras observing the exterior of the building. It's a huge building, and any reasonable surveillance system would provide overlapping fields of view on the exterior exposures of the building. I simply cannot believe this single video is the only one which provides surveillance on the side of impact. At the heart of American National Security, I am supposed to accept a single video camera apparently aimed to see passing cars in a driveway is the only available surveillance camera to catch the action? Let's suppose that is a true condition. Isn't it worth questioning why our Pentagon is so poorly protected by this surveillance and security system? And the FBI and others collected security tapes from the surrounding neighborhood systems too---and released only the smallest fraction of them for public viewing.

The government acts as though it wants to provoke suspicion. It fairly invites it.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

As the accompanying story states, that appears to be vido of a "thin white blur". How can we possibly conclude that this is actually a very large jet plane crashing into a building? (Should we also be trying to find Waldo and his striped hat somewhere?)

The thing about magic tricks is that the conclusion must be such a surprise that it completely displaces a viewer's capacity for reason in reviewing the setup. The most successful magic tricks are such a huge surprise that viewers accept the trick completely as an incredible event. They won't even consider the possibility they were flamboozled.

In practice, magic tricks work because the viewer has willingly and completely allowed himself to be successfully distracted during the setup. If the trick is successful, most people will neither want or need an explanation because the fun of the surprise has completely satisfied them. Some people are interested in analyzing the setup, taking additional amusement from learning how they were tricked, but that is rare. Depending on the intricacy of the setup and the size of the surprise many people will remain entranced by the trick, often to such an extent that even when the setup is fully demonstrated and explained, they frequently prefer to insist that a real magic trick occurred. Magicians tread a fine line. They must entertain and surprise without allowing their audience to realize they're being fooled. (People who suddenly realize they've been played for fools, can turn into very angry mobs.)

In this video, what most initially arrests your interest - the "thin white blur" or the explosion? Why have viewers successfully allowed what is rationally identifiable as a "thin white blur" to substitute for a very large jet liner? Hasn't nearly everyone had the experience of watching jet liners land at airports or fly at high speeds overhead? Why do you think jet liners moving at high speeds closer to the ground turn into thin white blurs although that doesn't happen when they're in the sky? If one completely subtracts the explosion from this video, is there anything at all about this thin white blur that suggests, implies or reminds one of a very large jetliner? Why is it important to believe that this thin white blur is actually a large jet liner?

IMO the questions arising from this video should have more to do with (a) whether the "thin white blur" is clearly and specifically directly related in any way to causing the explosion and (b) what elements and/or circumstances can cause a thin white blur similar to the one seen in the video?

This is only one of the distractions associated with the magic events of 911. There are so many, many unanswered questions, inconsistent sequences, doubtful forensics, and incomplete physical and technical analysis associated with all the events of that awful day, it's no wonder that an increasing number of people want rational details about everything that occurred and are daring to confront the possibility that they've been fooled.

If angry mobs are forming it should be no surprise.

http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20100227/conspiracy_kook#comment-207280

I had missed that.

...you're thinking big picture? It would be a part of the big picture in your life were it your house. The WTC towers were a big wing of our house. The idiot president couldn't bother to read a report and call an alert and the spooks who had the plot dead to rights for years were ignored. The destruction was the pivotal event in boosting the popularity of the idiot president who then used the event to invade Iraq to prevent such crimes in the future.

Thus began the final destruction of whatever remained of the Republic.

How productive is it to talk about a "grand strategy" when the vehicle for that strategy is run by fools on an errand for global loan sharks? The only strategy the minions and their masters are interested in is more of what they've got going right now -- total financial and military backing for any scheme they might come up with. They're not interested in anything else.

...getting them taken downtown and booked if that's viable, or putting two into their ten ring if it isn't. Notably I don't spend a lot of time listening to self-promoting, unqualified hucksters who don't have my interests to heart as to who it was that did my house. I also don't use what happened to my house as an excuse to wallow in in a bath of reasons as to why I didn't really deserve my house in the first place while not actually changing my behaviour.

Seriously, folks - get a grip, a good hard, firm grip. What most of you know about killing people could be written in foot high letters on the head of a pin. First step to figuring out what you should do is actually related to knowing what happened - but listening to hucksters bloviate about secret plots and then regurgitating it because you don't know the first thing about how one would execute an operation like this pretty much guarantees that you're going to continue to be in the dark about all of it. It also neatly removes you from the political playing field for any reasonable policy that you might seek. What an awesome play. You couldn't hand an opponent a better gift if you tried. You got enough wounds without looking for self-inflicted ones.

Now I see you all reaching for the keyboard - before starting to indignantly pound, ask yourself what the last book was that you read on the issue? The last five? The last ten? The last twenty? The best in the last year? The last two years? The last three? Five? Ever? If you can't answer those questions, you might more productively spend your time reading so that you have an answer to those questions.

“The mark of genius isn't having the answers. It's knowing the right questions. Context and detail are the hand maidens of genius." ~ not-Richard Haass

The last full book I read on the subject was Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. It was a long and tiresome read for me, delving in minute details.

Before that I read all 600 plus pages of Crossing the Rubicon.

I've watched countless films, read countless pages of shit on the Internet, read the Popular Mechanics debinking piece, etc. ad nauseum.

I also read a couple of books by Michael Scheuer and several more by Chalmers Johson that I found quite interesting and credible.

Oh yeah. I forgot about The Grand Chessboard by good old Zbig Brzezisnki.

Then there's Confessions of an economic hitman some of which I had the misfortune of witnessing personally while growing up in South America. Stuff like this fucks a guy's head up.

People are going to believe what they want to believe. One thing for sure: I am not going to allow some government disinfo agent tell me what to believe.

Growing up the son of a Counter Intelligence operative made me cynical. Years in the drug smuggling business and a stint in federal prison hardened me.

By the way, Mike Ruppert, author of Crossing the Rubicon was also the son of two intelligence officers (both his mother and his father). A man can't help but be a bit fucked up with a childhood like that.

I did inhale.

if you continue to ignore accumulating evidence which contradicts the official narrative. I think you should entertain other possibilities.

...is not so much evidence as bullshit in a pretty package of sophistry.

“Open to the possibilities does not mean being closed to Occam's Razor." ~ not-Richard Haass

This is a start (and I quote from it below):

Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. February, 2002 (Download entire report of sections)

consider that official position were not so full of lies. But sophistry? Come on. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" is a legitimate scientific effort. If this paper reflects reality, the whole official narrative comes down.

...how the instrumentation works - addresses the crucial "if" in your last sentence. Peer review of that particular work (and the journal generally) was, charitably, "light".

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

of the thought that some extreme elements of our government (and probably other governments) pulled off a false flag operation. This paper has been important to me. Since you're the researcher, how about a couple of clues as to where to start looking. I have seen no discussions as to its quality.

...right now. However, look at the journal they published in - it's a vanity press pretty much. Second volume of the journal, they've published a grand total of 14 articles, apparently can't figure who peer-reviewed the paper and the editor in chief resigned over the publication of the article, saying that she had been out of the loop. Me, I call that not so much the seal of quality.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Every "debunker" argument leveled against the nano-thermite paper reeks of faulty reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Those that use illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but pathological skeptics. Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science.

Link

Emphasis mine.

works both ways on this subject and it is also why these discussion never get anywhere! It is also why I believe in 100 years truth will prevail! :D I must say that that this thread is the most adult we have hosted and am thankful it has not fallen into the normal flame fest.

I'm a believer! :-)

Thanks for helping us stay civil, madame.

...you had go through the peer review process? The specific nature of the publication is a huge deal in the academic world and it's intimately linked to the degree of scrutiny a work receives, among other factors. They can say "peer review" until the cows come home, but not all peer review is created equally. When the executive editor doesn't know how the paper got in the journal, how it passed peer review, and walks as a result that don't speak kindly to this specific process.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

When you can't prevail in a debate by well-reasoned persuasion you resort to the tired, old claim to "higher" academic credentials, "insider" knowledge, and general brow-beating regarding your intelligence "status".

Give us a break, eh? Most of your best tidbits come right out of google. :-)

The fact remains - the paper has not been debunked, neither in nor out of academia, and neither in closed or open publications.

...(or phone them, I guess) find the the chair of the chemistry department. Ask them if they believe the peer review of all journals is the same. Ask them further if they think the peer review provided by that specific journal was likely to have met the standard of common practice in their discipline. No insider knowledge required.

“Actually, most of my best tidbits come out of books. Folks might not remember them - they're the rectangular things that fold open with writing that doesn't change. Folks stack them up on racks. Used to be quite the rage, I hear." ~ not-Richard Haass

Do you understand the difference between review and debunk?

...in my actual experience, but I'm guessing that the distinction that you would draw focuses on the intent of the review - debunking more along the lines of review aiming at a fore-ordained conclusion. Right track?

“I'm snotty about what I've read, not my intellect. If you'd compared my library to the quality of thought that rattles around in my brain pan, you'd know why this is much the wiser course." ~ not-Richard Haass

To debunk is to disprove. It just ain't that complicated. (Your innuendo notwithstanding. ;)

Where does that leave one when a party to the issue won't accept evidence that falsifies the hypothesis (e.g., as our disagreement about the size of the hole in the wall - you think the hole's small, I think you're ignoring stills that clearly show a big assed hole)? Because something can't be (or won't be) falsified does not make it the most compelling reconstruction.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

But if you wish to revert back to the "hole" discussion here, thats up to you. I shall not join you in that pursuit, as I've linked to our original discussion wherein you were, as now, quite clearly refuted.

The paper in question remains un-debunked. That is to say, "cant be falsified".

I dont have time or motivation to follow the truth webs, even less so the debunk webs. Honestly, my evaluation regarding the pentagon crash was based purely on my own analysis of the excellent private photos which are available - since nothing else has ever been released.

To fact-check myself here, and since you do seem to want to rehash that particular debate, I went looking around a bit and found this report, at one of the truth sites - published the same year as our previous discussion. Essentially, the article states that, while the physical evidence is certainly not conclusive, there is certainly enough of it to preclude rejection of hypothesis that a boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon out of hand.

Indeed, the "truthers" seem rather bent on disseminating this information to those of us who still have doubts about the boeing 757 impacting the pentagon, since it seems that we may be a significant deterrent to the acceptance of the rest of the evidence for conspiracy/coverup, such as the thermite residue, which this thread actually concerns, and WTC7 for example - among many others.

Thus, and since I have no wish to hinder the movement for truth, I allow that I may have misinterpreted the photographs of the pentagon four years ago. Nevertheless, and like most of the readers and commenters here, I remain entirely unconvinced by the official accountings, and yearn, nay plead for a complete investigation.

Presumably thats why SP posted the original Washtimes article which started this discussion as well - who'da though I'd ever agree with anything editorialized by the Washtimes...? Better work out that carpal tunnel, Dave, the truthers are being heard by the teabaggers.

just in case you dare defy Dave's "Bin Laden did it so just shut up" explanation, you can read their actual paper here.

For links to other peer reviewed papers - Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], go to the Journal of 911 Studies

This site also tracks the review progress of various papers and has assembled a number of related links on the whole subject.

Not worth the effort.

“Dinosaur, pfft." ~ not-Richard Haass, adopting the politics of a hunter-gatherer

...have you read any of the recent stuff by Chuck Bowden about Juarez? Didn't think so. In 2008 he documented over 1600 murders in Juarez. Last year the number was around 2,500. He interviewed a hit man that says the real numbers are considerably higher. Took him and showed him proof that the numbers are higher. Might have been five of these murders got solved.

Do you know what to shoot at in a drive by? This guy can tell you. Did tell Chuck. The key hole of the door. It'll get you every time.

I also had the fortune of being the cell-mate of a mafia hitman. Joe Ficarra, the name. He'd tell you killing someone is easy and the easiest of all crimes to get away with. .22 revolver in a Teddy Bear. Ice pick. In the kidneys, pointed upward, from behind, not the head.

You probably wouldn't believe how governments hired him to kill thousands of Mau Maus either. Man mixed Tide detergent with gasoline, dropped it from airplanes and burned people to death with the stuff. Later the idea caught on and napalm was developed.

It takes no genius to kill.

I did inhale.

...information out there constitutes actual data that can be used to address a given set of issues. As an example, how to pop someone with a diversionary device on the end of your arm doesn't really give you much insight into the viability of the nanothermite hypothesis.

“Make sure you bob the hammer and connect with the first shot. Gonna look pretty stupid trying to clear the works or reacquire a mover with the sights buried in Teddy Ruxpin's belly. And napalm pre-dates the Mau Mau Rebellion." ~ not-Richard Haass

For the record, I wouldn't know nanothermite if I snorted a line of the stuff.

If the official record is to believed, and I don't dismiss it out of hand, the weapons used were box knives and passenger jets.

The department of defense and the mightiest military machine on the planet were defeated by a small group of men with box knives, without any inside information or help.

As a former drug smuggler who crossed the southern border a hundred times or more before being caught, this sounds plausible to me.

I remember thinking to myself, it's a good thing I'm not interested in fucking this place up as I rode in on a load of what could have been a nuclear weapon, but wasn't.

And maybe that is what the powers that be are trying to cover up. We're protected by a bunch of lazy ass incompetent and fearful idiots.

Here's another secret they don't want us to know. The main element necessary to getting away with an assasination is the absence of an escape plan. If a motherfucker is willing to die for his cause, he's hard to stop.

I did inhale.

Finding out who actually did it is a key part of making sure it doesn't happen again. Hucksters are a huge problem as are disinformation sources. There are excellent sources of information out there which would help people decide who is lying and, perhaps, why. This also helps people check the tertiary sources, books and essays on national security.

Huckster: Condi Rice

"And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile." Condolezza Rice, 911 Commission Testimony

Excellent source of information: Joint Inquiry

Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. February, 2002 (Download entire report of sections)

"4. Finding: From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons." Part I. Findings and Conclusions, P. 9

The Joint Inquiry report was largely ignored, even in the 911 community. But Condi's statement, either a lie or a sign of gross negligence on her part, got prime time. Once the joint inquiry came out and the documented foreknowledge of using planes as weapons, any rational government would have dismissed her and she would have been largely shunned for this statement. Yet she endured. That's telling.

On edit: Here are some more sources from mainstream sources. The 911 Timelinel from History Commons is particularly useful for research and drawing your own conclusions.

History Commons - 911 Timeline - sequential listing in general and by topic from MSM publications and government documents.

Here's an example of a time line of a subtopic. Counter terrorism before 911.

Here's a book by reporter New York Times reporter Phillip Shenen. , The Commission: WHAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT 9/11 (Paperback). He explains how Phillip D Zekikow became commission director despite the fact that he'd handled transition planning for anti terrorism and Iraq policy for the Bush administration transition team.

...Notably I don't spend a lot of time listening to self-promoting, unqualified hucksters who don't have my interests to heart...

Are you sure about that? Is there a possibility that you've mis-identified the self-promoting unqualified hucksters and may have misunderstood whose interests were being served? Why do you fear asking questions about the events of that day?

...and it well merits the label of sophistry. As to asking questions, as I've pointed out, repeatedly, any schmuck can ask questions - quality is in choosing which questions to ask. As an example, seeing as how it seems to have faded so quickly from memory, all OSD had to do to divert int findings they didn't like during the run-up to OIF was ask pointless questions. Some of the time they didn't even bother changing the questions before re-tasking the assets to answer them anew.

“Fear questions? Fear questions, my ass. Bad questions look at my might and they know fear. Bwaha, haha, hahaaaa!" ~ not-Richard Haass, clearly having savoured the last of the '03 LBV just a wee bit too much

I can't get that tune out of my head.

Escher! LOL.

this was not even addressed in the offical report. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I did inhale.

For the entire story...

A friend of mine in the 911 Truth community wanted me to interview Herrit, the first author of the scientific paper, just before the story broke (which turned into no story). I didn't do it because I know next to nothing about chemistry and didn't believe I could carry my end of the bargain. So I watched to see what happened with the paper. Not one thing. You'd think that there would be some real interest when a pyrotechnic composition like that is found in significant quantities at the scene of major destruction.

There are so many questions remaining about 9/11. Lots of people have a lot to hide.

reminds me of how fundamentalists dismiss the existence of fossils on mountain tops. 'Satan put them there to make us doubt the Bible.' How the hell did this stuff get into dust samples from different sites? Somebody put there knowing that chemists and physicists would be studying it years later? Nevermind. It's still all crap.

They seem serious and they did a great analysis of those weird particles... That is really suspicious...

well said

...almost morbidly fascinating. It's really quite something to muck back through it all and see how the narrative went from initially questioning things that were unseen (e.g., did the USG intentionally down Flight 93 and then deny it?) to things that weren't broadcast, such as the Pentagon strike, finally working up the nerve to question the WTC strikes that so many saw live and in person on the day and have pretty rich primary documentation (particularly the second hit).

“Truth tellers? Pfffft. The truth doesn't come back again and again seeing what the audience will swallow this time." ~ not-Richard Haass

...the sense of entitlement to one's own facts by the conspiracy theorists is breathtaking. Also it is almost comical that, and you can see it in this thread, once you pin down something, the subject changes.

"...Once you pin down something, the subject changes."

Edit: I suspect your comment is more directed the 9/11 "movement" than to those posting at this thread?

...maybe a little bit of both but not much. If you read back to the responses there's some real wandering off into territory having nothing to do with what I was talking about. I will admit having believed 9/11 was a terrorist attack from literally the exact instant the first plane hit the north tower and nothing I have seen or heard since has shaken that belief.

but I'm not entirely convinced that an enormous suspension of disbelief isn't required to unquestioningly accept the notion that a loose association of a few persons, reportedly of middle eastern descent cooked up an idea involving successfully overwhelming American aircraft crews and passengers using nothing more than boxcutters, then successfully flew these hijacked aircraft through the most heavily patrolled air space in the world without interruption in order to successfully drive them into tall buildings with the advance expectation that these actions would successfully topple the buildings to the ground. Did I neglect to mention they'd already determined that physics be damned, although it has never happened before or since the heat of burning jet fuel, carpets and paper would be sufficient to immediately melt tons of steel or that a third building would likewise collapse in apparent structural sympathy?

If one chokes on this somewhat fantastical explanation, why is it necessary to jump to the conclusion that the government was somehow involved. Surely, the reasons to throughly investigate 911 involve discovering precisely what happened and identifying the correct perpetrators of the crime. There may be several more worthy suspects than either the US government or the Bin Laden gang.

...accept as true your posits. For example:

1. Overwhelming the flight crew - prior to 9/11 crew were trained to co-operate with hijackers. Before the ground shifted under our feet that day it was the smart play - get the a/c on the ground, then the good guys have a chance to work.

2. Most heavily patrolled airspace in the world - not a high bar. Most intensively monitored large airspace, at militarily relevant (i.e., high) altitudes, maybe. Heavily patrolled? Nope. Total a/c on patrol at the time: n=0. Total a/c on Alert 15: n = 14 and that's for all of NORAD. Of course, in order to vector fighters onto a target you have to be able to find it, which takes a lot more time when the target turns off its transponder as three out of four a/c did that day.

3. Expectation that it would topple these structures - odd that ObL himself says that he was surprised that they collapsed, that he believed that only part above the impact would collapse and that he was the most optimistic of the planning cell.

4. Immediately melt tons of steel - don't know what coverage you were watching, but the minimum time prior to collapse was 56 minutes for WTC 2. Structural steel loses the vast majority of its strength well before it becomes molten and that temperature is within the range of fire temps commonly seen in building fires. If it this isn't the case why did the relevant building codes require steel to be fire insulated? Certainly isn't because the steel's going to burn and pretty much any structure's amply full of other combustibles. There's a reason why firefighters say "never trust a truss".

5. Necessary to jump to the conclusion that the government was involved - not if one knows something more about the world than the average TV fed sofa squatter.

“'The truth is out there' is an acceptable guiding principle for bad TV - for scientific inquiry, look closer to home. Typically 'the truth is right there', trick is knowing enough to recognize it in the face of sexier alternatives." ~ not-Richard Haass

Who could possibly imagine that the 757, weighing 125 tons, could NOT completely and utterly disintegrate into the pentagon through a window and leave the walls intact and no debris outside? Any other explanation is simply unthinkable.

The hole in the side of the structure is about 85 feet wide.

“I'm looking to make a sun porch - do you happen to know who makes those huge windows? That they're blastproof would be the cherry on my sundae." ~ not-Richard Haass

discussed this at length before, and since the stills (still) haven't changed, I suggest you consider that all of your assertions to experience and reference to "official reports", both here and throughout this thread, are falling upon an steadily less-submissive, and more-enlightened audience. My poll four years ago showed that there was already a majority of us at that time who were deeply suspicious and doubtful about the official account of 9/11, and I suspect a new poll would further broaden the gap between the majority and the "sensible". :-) But don't let that stop you from getting a good case of carpal tunnel syndrome here, as long as you think you're actually convincing anyone except yourself.

...actually see fact in front of your eyes. My heart felt advice to you - never take a position where you may have to wager your life, or God forbid the life of others, on your judgement.

“Finally, I'm fucking speechless - but on the good side, carpal tunnel free!" ~ not-Richard Haass

I'll keep that in mind next time I have to evaluate an image for an intact wall.

I don't know if people have seen these, but Nat. Geo. has some reports on this, here:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/conspiracy-vs-science#tab-Videos/07095_00

In particular, I found the video about the modeling of the collapse of the two towers to be compelling. That ended the question of whether it was impossible or not, for me. While there is such a thing as 'laundering' in the scientific community (vanity journals, etc. - there have been some atrocious 'studies' of homosexuality published in pay journals that have all the cosmetics of a real peer reviewed journal, for instance) usually that only works to fool people NOT in the community. This effort doesn't seem like one of those. I try to be consistent in my acceptance of the products of the scientific process...

As for conspiracy theories, I tend to agree with the commenter who quoted Bonaparte. I don't really believe in evil, but I sure do believe in stupidity, fear, greed and incompetence. It's fair to raise questions - that's part of the process. But jumping to unsubstantiated narratives is unhelpful. I understand that people have a deep need to make sense of their world and to try to make it seem controllable (and I think that a world in which a gov't. pulls false-flag operations is more 'controlled' than one in which a handful of average guys can pull a stunt like this), but to reject one narrative as unsupported by the evidence and then substitute another unsupported narrative is foolishness. The place to stop is after you have asked the questions, but before you start trying to explain it. And, yeah, I know how frustrating it is that this stuff will never get a good looking into, but I've gotten used to that in the last 10 years. Sweeping everything under the rug is the new national pasttime...

All that said, I don't know much about the WTC7 controversy, I'm not commenting on that one way or another.

Why is the government's explanation considered the status quo? How was that established? Because they say so? What does it mean to know the truth? Because the government is the arbiter of all truth? There is sufficient doubt, some of it well founded to make an investigation necessary but the government refuses. The one investigation that was done seems to be an attempt to supply an alternative to the conspiracy theories and not an attempt to get at the truth.

The US government seems to be behaving as if they did something wrong; as if they are hiding something. Now it could be that they are hiding something no one expects; perhaps they are hiding from political fallout over something they had no control over. None the less, life is a bitch sometimes, and this has to be investigated and maybe there are some people who will loose their jobs unfairly. The alternative is continuing doubt, loss of faith in public institutions, and then what's next? A real emergency where people don't know what to do because they don't believe anything their government says?

The US government has shown time-after-time that they often do not act in the public's interest and then lie about it. When you think about the sparsity of hard information in the public domain about past events; it becomes terrifying based on what we do know. Where there's a flame there is huge fire. How many more "Pentagon Papers" are out there? What proportion of its secrets does the US government keep because they know the public would disapprove? 25%, 50%, or what? Now we are asked to believe the government's explanation of a truly monumental event.

I have some small experience with failure analysis; enough to know that no thorough analysis was done on the world trade center. From my experience, there is not sufficient information about the failure of those buildings that would allow an engineer to know what happened. I have seen one model of the twin tower's collapse but that is a only a model; not proven. At this point, all we have is speculation from the government and the conspiracy theorists about what happened; let's get to the bottom of it.

Back in the day of the cold war, in the 70's and into the 80's, the United States was trying to figure out how the Russians knew so much about first line US weapons systems; both planned and deployed. There was a great deal of churning among security and warnings issued to employees of contractors. It was a mystery until a captured Russian agent passed photographs of a scrapbook of documents about US weapons systems; the smoking gun. It turns out that the scrapbook contained articles cut out from a magazine called "Air and Space Weekly", which later changed its name to the now familiar "Aviation Week". This fact was also classified.

I found out what weapon my ex used by watching 60 minutes in 82', they were told not to talk about it. :D

Because after this, we all got warned not to talk about articles in Air and Space with anyone. That was their solution, not to crack down on the magazine, which clearly had inside information from the Pentagon itself, but to crack down on people talking about it. I suppose some would argue that the Pentagon could plant misleading information in that magazine but the magazine was so accurate about other things that it seems like it was doing way too much damage to justify covert use. For example, the magazine specified the exact wattage of the tail laser in the B-1 before the B-1's were deployed. The existence of the tail laser was one of the B-1's big secrets.

but I will say it isn't an all or nothing question.

The entire government doesn't have to be involved for something like this to happen. Not even a large number of well placed people have to be involved. If 20 men with box cutters can do this, why can't a small group of men within government be involved with those 20 men?

There was a time that I accepted the notion that Oswald killed JFK unassisted. Then I met Carlos Marcello in prison. I'd now go so far as to say I know Oswald didn't act alone, or as close to knowing as you can come without actually witnessing the events.

We as a nation jumped at the idea that Osama bin Laden pulled this off, yet he has not to date been indicted for the act. Why is that?

Something stinks here. It is not the people asking questions that do a disservice to the family members of lost ones. It's the bastards that failed to thoroughly investigate the mass murder of almost 3,000 American citizens.

A question: Do you believe people in the United States government were involved in the importation and distribution of crack cocaine?

Well, they were. And that sir, is a fact.

Another fact: Our ancestors put on uniforms and killed upward of a half million Americans in a war we call civil. Contrary to public belief, it wasn't some noble war to free slaves, although that notion worked quite well in the selling of the thing.

I did inhale.

It could be an underground group with some ties to the DoD or with the CIA. Or it could be a shadow group of very proactive defense contractors.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

found via google.

I will not to pretend to defend anything but google is God for looking for info

Well here we see a blog debunking a peer reviewed paper by not even trying to debunk it. The peers are supposed to do that but I guess they are just scientists. We can all go around and around like this. I say let's have an investigation, real independent scientists and professionals who do failure analysis for a living.

From the article above under Peer Reviewed:

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

Emphasis added. Yes there are lots of hypothesis but no one knows what happened. Again, lets have an investigation.

a true and honest investigation is what is needed. However there are those who will never believe. I stand by using google, if only because it does enable people to step outside their comfort zone of belief to entertain that there are other ideas out there.

You are right of course but we are limited. I would like to see scientific papers that either validate or do not validate the paper that found evidence of explosives.

So is Sunstein when you and he say that some people will never believe. I would say that is a very poor excuse for not trying to get at the truth or telling the truth. Sunstein is using this very idea to suggest that any search for the truth outside of the Executive branch should be actively and covertly interfered with. You seem to be saying don't bother finding the truth because no one will believe it.

I am all for finding the truth. However some people are so deep in their beliefs that they will never believe the govt wasn't involved.(if that is what a true and honest report reveals)

Why even mention it?

we are talking past each other lol

I have spent some time there. Some good, some not so good. But I am actually pushing JPD to respond to the substance of the Herrit article at high level -- debunking911.com does not do that.

BTW, we agree. Let's have a real investigation.

I also don't appreciate the sleep I gave up at the peak of the pre-end of government fiscal rush to dig this out of my browser archive to answer your question. This is a link to excerpts of an e-mail discussion between the authors of the paper and a critic of it, come to your own conclusion - I have, yours I am sure will vary.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-105.html#p2943

The Rumsfeld gambit of ceaselessly asking questions and ignoring answers one does not like triumphs, even over the unusually committed [in both senses of the word, I fear]. Consider this my last comment on the topic or any other.

“When agonizing ceases to be about asking good questions and striving collectively for answers, it ceases to be agonizing - or rewarding, even in minor ways." ~ not-Richard Haass, transmission ends