9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

hahaha ok, maineshark, I've "researched" you in this thread now and wow, to my shock and utter surprise you're doing nothing but insulting people!...if you do talk this way to people, you must not have very many teeth left, maybe a couple in the back...

And I talk exactly the same in person as I do online.  You can verify with folks here that I'm not missing any teeth.

Open-carrying two firearms at a time might have something to do with that.

Good dental plan, Shark.

[jaqeboy]

Another amazing coincidence related to the WTC

by Kevin Ryan - a must read! - it just gets curiouser and curiouser....

"There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

"In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]

"

read entire article for more...

[jaqeboy]

aloha - a good and thoroughly documented review of the NIST report. Warning: long - took me a few days to finally finish it:

The NIST Report on the World Trade Center Collapse one year later: Still Dead On Arrival

By Mark H. Gaffney

A note to the reader: In December 2006 Mark H. Gaffney posted a scathing critique of the US government's official report about the WTC collapse on 9/11. One year later, the case is stronger than ever. * *

Some excerpts:

When NIST released its final report in September 2005, critics charged that the agency had ignored evidence of explosions in the towers. The agency responded by asserting its scientific laurels. NIST insisted that its "200 technical experts" had conducted "an extremely thorough investigation." NIST boasted that its staff "reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," yet, found "no corroborating evidence for a controlled demolition." NIST also claimed that it had considered "a number of hypotheses for the collapse of the towers."[3]

No doubt, many Americans were persuaded by this snow-job. Sad to say, few of our countrymen (or women) bother to read official reports, especially when they run to 10,000 pages. The persistent individuals who do, however, know that there are sound reasons to question all of the above; because a close reading of the NIST report shows that the agency assumed from the beginning that the Boeing 767 impacts and subsequent fires were responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. The report gives no consideration whatsoever to alternative hypotheses, including the possible use of explosives, the leading candidate. Far from exploring other scenarios, NIST simply took it for granted that the impacts set in motion a chain of events leading to a catastrophic structural failure. Working backwards, NIST scientists searched for evidence that supported their predetermined conclusion. Everything else was ignored or excluded. If it is not already evident to the reader, this is no way to conduct a scientific investigation. NIST then had the audacity to imply that it arrived at its favored collapse model through an exhaustive process of elimination. Most readers who merely browsed NIST's 2005 Executive Summary probably were not aware that NIST's stated conclusion was really an assumption. Consider this passage, for example:

"The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks were directly attributable to the fact that terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. Buildings for use by the general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact."[4]

The above comment about building codes is deceptive–––NIST readily concedes in its report that the towers survived the initial impacts. In fact, John Skilling, the structural engineer who designed the WTC, always claimed that they would. The towers survived, despite serious damage, because they were hugely overbuilt, redundant by design. Although the WTC's soaring lines gave the impression of a relatively light frame, in fact, the twin towers were extremely rugged buildings, engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds and even a direct hit by a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jetliner of the day. Some have argued that the newer Boeing 767s caused much more damage because of their larger size, but in fact, the two Boeings are comparable. Although slightly smaller, the 707 has a greater cruise speed of 600 mph (as compared with 530 mph for a Boeing 767). Assuming both were to crash at this speed, the 707 would actually have greater kinetic energy.[5]

After the Boeing 767 impacts on 9/11 the severed steel columns simply transferred the weight of the building to other undamaged columns. The NIST report even states that the towers would probably have stood indefinitely, if the impacts had not dislodged the fireproofing material that protected the steel from fire-generated heat.[6]

Which is the rub... guess I shouldn't quote the entire article. You should read it to see what the evidence for dislodged fireproofing was and what the evidence for temperatures reached in the column steel was.

[jaqeboy]

Maybe they'll start a group called "Former heads of State for 9/11 Truth"   

Hmm, not far off :

Article: We are all prisoners now

by: Paul Craig Roberts

excerpt:
"Many Europeans regard 9/11 itself as an orchestrated event. Former cabinet members of the British, Canadian and German governments and the Chief of Staff of the Russian Army have publicly expressed their doubts about the official 9/11 story. Recently, a former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said in an interview with the newspaper, Corriere della Sera (November 30, 2007), that "democratic elements in America and Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know that the 9/11 attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad in order to blame the Arab countries, and to persuade the Western powers to undertake military action both in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"It is unclear whether Cossiga was being sarcastic about the opinion of skeptics or merely reporting what people think. I have written to him asking for clarification and will report any reply that I receive. Apparently, the Italian media has not offered a clarification.

"Cossiga's statement has not been reported by a single U.S. newspaper or TV channel, raising doubts among Americans that the government is not a strong point of the corporate media. Americans live in a world of propaganda designed to secure their acquiescence to war crimes, torture, searches and police state measures, military aggression, hegemony and oppression, while portraying Americans (and Israelis) as the salt of the earth who are threatened by Muslims who hate their 'freedom and democracy.' "

[jaqeboy]

Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7).  If you can, I won't put you on ignore.

...

In any case, the official NIST report did not assign the primary cause to fire damage, but to structural damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers, which took out a good bit of the south face of the building.

Nick, here's the latest on the NIST report you seem to be referring to above. Are you inadvertantly referring to some other report? Please give us a link, OK? I think everyone would like to read whatever you are referring to.

WTC 7 report set for summer 2008 release

The delayed National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 following the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001 will be released for public comment this July. A final version will be published a month later, in August 2008.

NIST's investigation of the WTC 7 collapse was supposed to have been completed by the end of 2006, but more complex, and time-consuming, computer simulations, along with a consideration of some additional evidence (mainly architectural and construction documents and plans), has stretched out the process, according to Michael E. Newman of NIST.

[jaqeboy]

Sorry dudes - was mining a vein - I'll put down the pickaxe now to give you a rest. 

[alohamonkey]

Jaqeboy . . . thanks for getting this thread back on track.  Good stuff.  I'm still a few pages back in my readings but I love having links/reports available when I have free time. 

[coffeeseven]

Sorry dudes - was mining a vein - I'll put down the pickaxe now to give you a rest. 

[jaqeboy]

Thom Hartmann Show, November 8, 2007:

Kevin Ryan and Michael Shermer Debate What Really Happened on 9/11

This radio show sounds remarkably like the back and forth on this thread! (but thankfully without the vituperation and gratuitous vitriol, discourtesy and name-calling)

Michael Shermer is "the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, the executive director of the Skeptics Society – their website, http://www.Skeptic.com"

Kevin Ryan is "the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, the former site manager for Underwriters Laboratories in South Bend..."

A good read, but, like I warned... if you've been following this thread, you've probably heard both sides. Worth a read, nevertheless.

[alohamonkey]

Good stuff.  I'm listening to it now.  I never knew Thom Hartman directly confronted this issue.  I used to listen to him on Sirius radio and he always danced around the issue but never attacked it head-on.  I had to disable Sirius at the end of last summer and just got it set up again about a week ago.  Looking forward to hearing this discussion.

Do you by any chance have a link to the interview between the radio announcer from ND (I think) with the Popular Mechanics guy?  It was the interview where the PM guy claimed that they were able to identify the terrorists that were in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon because they found their DNA in the wreckage?  My computer died about 2 weeks ago and I lost everything . . . slowly piecing it together again. 

[jaqeboy]

...
Do you by any chance have a link to the interview between the radio announcer from ND (I think) with the Popular Mechanics guy?  It was the interview where the PM guy claimed that they were able to identify the terrorists that were in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon because they found their DNA in the wreckage?  My computer died about 2 weeks ago and I lost everything . . . slowly piecing it together again. 

Wow, sorry to hear about the computer, but I'm in the same boat, too - having major issues. (They're    out to get us!!!    )

No, I don't have any link handy on that interview. I bet it can be found with a quick search. I remember hearing that, too, but I don't remember where I heard it.

[alohamonkey]

Aha.  Found it.  This is an old interview between Charles Goyette (radio host in AZ) and Davin Coburn (editor/researcher of Popular Mechanics story on 9/11).  I had forgotten about this interview until I was discussing the Popular Mechanics book with a friend the other day.  Keep in mind that, at the time of the interview, Goyette did not classify himself as a "truther" by any means.  He was just a skeptic asking questions and asking for evidence.  I'm not sure where he stands today. 

Listen to the podcast if possible (sorry about the audio quality) . . . the "unofficial transcript" typed out below is missing alot of parts.  I think the most important part of the interview is from 17:00 minutes on.  Gavin from Popular Mechanics was asked by a caller about the 5-7 hijackers that turned up after 9/11 alive.  Gavin asserted that the BBC report on these men was false.  When pressed on what makes him believe this, Gavin says that it's because they tested DNA from "all over the place" on 9/11 and found DNA from the hijackers.  Goyette grills him for a while and it's blatantly obvious that Gavin is either a) completely lying or b) doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. 

The podcast can be found here -  http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3


From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060826165457842

Saturday, August 26 2006   -   In the Media
AZ Radio Host Deconstructs Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Disinfo Researcher

9/11 Facts and Myths: Charles Goyette interviews Davin Coburn, editor / researcher of PM's original 9/11 conspiracy slam

Charles Goyette Show
KFNX Radio
August 23, 2006

    Ever wonder why prominent "official story" apologists always shun 9/11 truth debates? Here perhaps is the nightmare that they dread. Show host Goyette is not an overt 9/11 skeptic, just a fearless interrogator with a very logical mind. One guesses the battered Mr. Coburn will be picking his interview venues with much more care next time. A podcast of this powerful show is available here. - Ed.

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

PM - Popular Mechanics: Davin Coburn "researcher, editor, reporter on the original 9/11 article"
CG - Charles Goyette, Radio Show Host

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?

PM: Very little... there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.

CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven't seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.

PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material...

CG: I've talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they're not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don't really show much of anything.

PM: They don't show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it's not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.

CG: Are you telling me that's the only video?

PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they're still being used for various investigations.

CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it's five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?

PM: I think there's plenty of evidence out there...

CG: It's not the evidence we've seen that we're concerned about, it's the evidence we haven't seen. Does that make any sense?

PM: Oh sure it makes sense.... The evidence is abundant...

CG: It's the dog that didn't bark... We know the evidence we've seen, that doesn't cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don't see. It's not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?

PM: "Hearst."

CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, "Oh shut up, you peons don't know what you're talking about, everything's fine, keep on moving, there's nothing to see here." Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn't it?

PM: (does not answer this question)

CG: ...I want to come back to the unseen evidence - the dog that didn't bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle - where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..

PM: It's not up to us...

CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don't know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We're told who did it, we've invaded two countries in response to it, we've spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?

PM: How can I answer the question?

CG: Because you don't know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?

PM: (Cannot answer question)

CG: ...Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics...say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed... there was damage to Building 7.... What we found out was...about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it... Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower...

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true... I go, oh that's interesting...if that's true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you've got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn't show that. So I'm going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don't show me the picture.

PM: ...We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate....

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? ....What did you see there that I can't see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that's dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You're publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they've done the worst possible thing, they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn't know we had different classes of citizens. You can't tell me it's because it's a criminal case because they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: ....I can't answer that question.

CG: I know you can't.

PM: (is speechless)....

...Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, "We're alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We're alive and well." How do you explain that one?

PM: It was one BBC report - I am saying that is false.

Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?

PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes...

Caller: What remains?

PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.

Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven't heard anything about autopsy reports.

CG: I want to know, even if we presume you're correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh...I mean, where the hell did they get it? You're not even talking sensibly with me.

PM: Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that.

CG: Of course you don't.

PM: I'll get back to you with it.

CG: Is that a promise?

PM: I will do my best.

CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he's gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had...hijacked those planes. Good, I'd like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?

PM: No, actually I don't...

CG: You don't understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers' DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against - Do you think that's bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it's conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers...

PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that's worth answering....

CG: ...You've told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You're the one with the answers, I'm not. I just ask questions.

PM: ...A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over....

CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we've invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we're gonna spend trillions of dollars. It's not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What's so hard about that?

PM: The way that you're framing it is intentionally...

CG: Of course it is, 'cause it's five years later and we haven't heard the answer. And you haven't given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that's it. You see, it's the way I'm framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.

PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.

CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that's it. Hey Davin, thanks...the Charles Goyette Show.

END

[alohamonkey]

The NIST report even states that the towers would probably have stood indefinitely, if the impacts had not dislodged the fireproofing material that protected the steel from fire-generated heat.[6]

You know what's interesting?  Per an article I read the other day, the Windsor Building in Madrid had little to no fireproofing in place as well.   
I didn't read the article on this site but it verifies the fact - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

[coffeeseven]

Reminds me of the question after Saddam's son was killed by the U.S. military. They bombed the place down to bedrock and after the fact the question came up "how did you know Saddam's son was among the dead?"

"DNA"

Harry Potter's magic wand is not nearly as cool as saying "DNA". It's like a get out of jail free card.

[yonder]

Ummm Saddam's sons were easily identified.  DNA was just to be sure but the bodies were not mutilated quite that badly.  They were largely quite intact.

But don't believe me.  See them for yourself (graphic images follow): http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-husseinsons-photogallery,0,360538.photogallery?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil