9-11 was an inside job

[Caleb]

I don't care who burned down the Reichstag toppled the towers anywhere near as much as I care about the actions taken in response.

Ron, who toppled the towers is far more important than the response.

IF we accept the premise that the towers were toppled by foreign terrorists, then the response could merely be a misguided attempt to do the right thing and to protect innocent American lives.  Thus, some hope might remain that we can negotiate with them and help them to understand that there is a better response.

However, IF we accept the premise that the government (or elements within the government) conspired to bring down the towers, there can be NO reasoning with them.  There can be NO hope for change.  It only remains for us to "alter or abolish" our current form of government.  This is so because the "response" is in actuality not a misguided attempt to protect us at all; instead, it is an engineered attempt to deprive us of our liberties.

Caleb

[Russell Kanning]

Who is "the government" here?  People did this.  If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?

The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.

[Russell Kanning]

The Alex Jones school of conspiracy theory loves to throw out questions, as if the lack of definitive answers is proof of something. In reality, the proper response is usually, "So what?", "What difference does it make?", or "Who cares?"

Isn't the government supposed to answer the people's questions? Some of their expanations either contradict or cannot be true. Do you not care if these people lie or tell the truth to us?

[Russell Kanning]

You guys and the internet should have been around after the Kennedy Assasination.

We are around after his assassination.
Maybe we should start doing something about it.

[JonM]

Who is "the government" here?  People did this.  If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?

The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.

You have no proof of this, merely speculation.  You don't think the Democrats hate Bush enough to go after him if there were proof he were involved?  Or do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?

[Caleb]

Or do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?

BINGO!  We have a winner!

[Caleb]

You have no proof of this, merely speculation.

www.st911.org

Its amazing how much "proof" there is.

[Atlas]

Who is "the government" here?  People did this.  If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?

The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.

You have no proof of this, merely speculation.  You don't think the Democrats hate Bush enough to go after him if there were proof he were involved?  Or do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?
[/quote
Read the book "Tragedy and Hope."  Wrote in 1964 by Georgetown law professor Carroll Quigley, it gives an insider's view of the internationalist's plan make both political parties virtually the same, so when one party gets voted out, there will be no policy change when the new party came in.  Take the beginning of 2000 when Bush was elected. No one would've believed that He could possibly out-spend Clinton like he did.  Point being, the liberal was taken out of office and a neocon was installed and business continues as usual. Or worse.

PS: Checkout reopen9/11.org

[KBCraig]

You have no proof of this, merely speculation.

www.st911.org

Its amazing how much "proof" there is.

The only thing that's amazing is that highly intelligent people, such as yourself and Russell, believe that speculation constitutes proof.

This article, for instance, is titled "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" (emphasis mine):

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

It starts out with a misdirection: that fire cannot cause the collapse of a steel-framed highrise building. Who has ever said that fire alone caused the collapse of the towers? Yes, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner. I'll note that such design specifications are very difficult to quantify, and impossible to test. This was the only time the towers were tested for impact of a full-size airliner, massive explosion, and raging fire. They failed the test.

Steel-framed buildings collapse all the time due solely to fire damage. High-rise buildings are obviously designed to a tougher standard, and they include fire suppression systems. No fire system is sufficient to put out a fire fueled not just by tens of thousands of pounds of flammable liquid, but also by the massive draft.

This paper also tears down the oft-used strawman that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel beams. This is so utterly transparent that I don't know why it's survived, except that it keeps being repeated by those who willingly suspend disbelief. The steel beams do not have to melt in order to lose their load-bearing capacity.

For starters, the article doesn't discuss the composition of the steel. This is important, because different alloys have different degrees of plasticity at different temperatures. Mild steel becomes significantly plastic around 1,200F, and is workable down to around 700F, where S2 (a shock-resistant tool steel) remains extremely difficult to work right up to the point where it begins to burn.

The next strawman is the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Jet fuel (kerosene, diesel) is not a hot-burning fuel, when burned at standard conditions. That is, in open air. Acetylene gas burns even cooler, barely burning at all, with a flickering yellow flame giving off massive amounts of soot. But combine it with oxygen, as in an oxyactylene torch, and it will blast through thick pieces of steel at almost 6,000F.

Propane gas burns hot enough to heat water and cook food, but not hot enough to raise steel to working temperature. But combine it with a blast of air, either from a blower or an induced draft, and you can burn steel into a useless molten mess.

These two examples, coming from no expertise other than my limited experience as an erstwhile amateur blacksmith, counter the "proof" that jet fuel couldn't have burned hot enough to weaken the steel support structure. Given 110+ stories of draft acting as a venturi, I would not be surprised if internal temperatures in the fire exceeded 4,000F.

I've given my background, so that you can judge whether or not I have any knowledge that gives me a valid basis for my thinking. What about the author of this piece?

The author is listed as "David Ray Griffin, PhD". Due to the discussion of materials, engineering, and physics, the reader would naturally assume that Dr. Griffin is schooled in the hard sciences. Curious, I checked the "Who we are" section of st911, and found that Dr. Griffin is "Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University".

I trust that Dr. Griffin is an expert in his field, but his field is not engineering, architecture, or physics. His field is the exact opposite, existing solely in the spiritual plane, not the physical.

I have read this piece, but I will admit that I have not chased down all the citations. Here's why: when an author practices such flagrant deception in his opening paragraphs, I assume that he will continue to deceive through selective omission and partial quotation. His opening premise chimes 13 times; the remainder simply cannot be trusted.

Lest I be accused (again) of being a government apologist, I'm one of their biggest detractors. I have no doubt that the government told untruths, both through incompetence and dishonesty. I know that certain things will never be revealed, because they would compromise intelligence operations.

But, I also know that professional conspiracy theorists like Dr. Griffin are even less trustworthy, and, frankly, not all that good at their lies.

Kevin

[Barterer]

KBCraig,
As a civil engineer I can vouch for your point, that the intense heat from the fire(s) was enough to weaken the steel columns and initiate collapse.  The collapse of both buildings was exactly consistent with a structural failure at or near the location of the fires.  Of coarse that does not mean there weren't coverups --probably for security reasons or just officials trying not to look like incompetent fools-- but the controlled-demolition part of the conspiracy theory (at least for bldg. 1 & 2 ) is bogus.

[Caleb]

Kevin,

I am not sufficiently trained in the sciences to make a judgment call.  I was going to be a physics major, but I'm a flunky, so I hardly would qualify as an expert.  Take these opinions, therefore, with the grain of salt they are intended.

I consider the collapse of the buildings to be a relatively minor point; in other words, it wasn't that particular line of thinking that convinced me that the government is complicit.  (What started me down the rabbit hole is evidence that many of the "hijackers" are still alive.  I previously believed the government story.  More on that in a second.)  That having been said, I will note several things about the collapse of the buildings that are incompatible with the current theory, from a scientific standpoint.

First, on the assumption that the fires were raging so hot that they could have weakened the steel sufficiently:  I understand that there is a difference between the heat required to melt steel, and the heat required to weaken its load bearing.  I won't pretend to know what that point is, but I feel confident in assuming that that point must be higher than the point at which humans would be uncomfortable.  There are, to be sure, photographs of people jumping from the first tower to their deaths, but the other tower has pictures of people walking around in the entry site, taking a look around.  Who knows, maybe those people were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.    But that is suspicious to me.  It's also suspicious that people reported hearing bomb blasts, but that information wasn't included in the report.  Even more suspicious is the report from Mike Pecoraro (a maintenance worker in WTC) that a bomb had gone off in the basement LONG BEFORE the tower collapsed. 
http://valis.gnn.tv/blogs/11129/Maintenance_workers_saw_evidence_of_apparent_bombings_in_the_WTC_basement_prior_to_the_collapse

So once again, I'm not an expert, but there is some pretty damning circumstantial evidence.  And what most people don't know is that there is no general agreement on how the buildings collapsed.  You seem to be advocating the "pancake theory", but largely based on pictures that showed evidence that the heat wasn't that great on the exterior, an engineering firm ("Wesserstein" or some similar name) concluded that the failure had been in the building's central concrete core, which had absorbed most of the heat.  The problem with that theory (once again, I'm only going off of my limited physics background) is that the buildings fell at nearly the standard gravitational rate (10 meters per second per second), whereas it would seem that even collapsing concrete would provide some degree of resistence. 

At any rate, there is no plausible theory to explain the collapse of wtc 7.

Caleb

[Caleb]

Kevin,

I?m sorry for accusing you of being a government apologist.  I meant specifically with respect to 9-11, not the government as a whole, but it wasn?t a kind charge, and I apologize.

I hadn?t read Dr. Griffin?s paper, but I went ahead and did so because its difficult to comment on things that you haven?t even read.

First of all, Dr. Griffin DOES acknowledge precisely what you say he doesn?t:  That the official story is, not that fires alone caused the collapse, but fires combined with the explosions and jet crash:

?With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: ?The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building? (FEMA, 2002).?

And again ?

?Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners.?

It is true that Dr. Griffin focuses mainly on the fires, rather than the structural collapse, but he noted his reasons for doing so, citing this official statement of the cause of the collapse:

The NIST Report (2005, pp. xliii and 171) says: ?the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.?

Dr. Griffin is trying to make the point that, although the official story speak of both ?fires? and ?structural damage?, the structural damage was irrelevant because the building was designed to redistribute load through multiple redundancies.  Thus, whatever you may think of the logic of his argument, I don?t think its fair to accuse him of dishonesty because he never omits or distorts anything.  He presents it, and then rejects one of the assertions as being irrelevant.  You may disagree with his conclusion, but he hasn?t been dishonest.

Going on,  you state this about Dr. Griffin?s article:  ?This paper also tears down the oft-used strawman that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel beams. This is so utterly transparent that I don't know why it's survived, except that it keeps being repeated by those who willingly suspend disbelief. The steel beams do not have to melt in order to lose their load-bearing capacity.?

But Dr. Griffin never asserted that was the position of the official story.  In fact, he states quite the opposite.  After noting that a few people at the outset made the astounding claim that the steel had been melted, Dr. Griffin makes this statement:
?Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.? 

He thus addresses the very points that you imply he does not address.  Once again, you may not agree with his conclusions, but I think it is unfair to charge him with dishonesty.
In fact Dr. Griffin addresses many speculations that you have not even mentioned.  He appears to be trying to come at it from ?every angle.?

And ? I?m trying to be fair to you here, Kevin, but I feel its important to bring this point up:  You singled Dr. Griffin out, noting that he is not an expert in the field.  However, there is another paper on the same website, placed immediately above Dr. Griffin?s article by Professor Steven Jones, who is an expert in that particular field.  In fairness to Dr. Griffin, wouldn?t the argument that he?s not an expert in the field at least mitigate the charge that he is being intentionally dishonest?  You seem to be treating Dr. Griffin in two contradictory ways.  First, you dismiss his positions because he is not an expert in the field.  And yet, you then turn around and hold him to the standards of an expert in the field and accuse him of dishonesty.  But you correctly note that he is a Professor of Theology.  Wouldn?t being an expert in that particular field cause you to at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not being intentionally dishonest?

My position is this:  I agree with GK Chesterton.  I don?t think a person needs to be an expert to hold an informed viewpoint on a subject.  However ? to the extent that there are experts on the website who are better trained than Dr. Griffin, I will hold them as more authoritative. 

You should have read Dr. Jones? article, not Dr. Griffin?s, if you are interested in reading from an expert in the field.  Dr. Griffin does not claim to be an expert.

[KBCraig]

I chose the Griffin article rather randomly, because the author was listed as a PhD. It's listed on st911.org as a paper proving the towers didn't collapse from the impact and fire. Given what the group aims have others believe, I assume it's representative.

You're correct that Griffin makes note of those who doubt his view. Perhaps we came away with a different overall feel for the article, but here's my paraphrase of it: "Those who buy the official line point out x and y. But that's just silly, and they're wrong." He notes the argument, then dismisses it out of hand. That's not the same as coming at it from all angles.

Should there ever be actual proof of government complicity in 9/11, I'll be surprised. Not surprised that there are people in government who are so evil as to do such a thing, but very surprised that anyone could be competent to pull off such a large and complex operation, requiring hundreds of participants, and yet maintain total secrecy.

Apology noted and accepted on the "believer in government" remark. Thanks, and I look forward to a long friendship, and future robust debates. 

Kevin

[Russell Kanning]

Dr. Griffin is not a conspiracy theory author. He just had questions about 9/11 and gathered up all the problems into a book and then a second one later. We heard him in Brattleboro a little while ago and enjoyed him. His books are good. He has gone from a questioner of the governments story to a firm believer in their deceptiveness. I agree with him.

[Caleb]

Thanks Kevin, I do consider you a friend and am glad you forgive me.  Now, if we can only convince you ... you'll be a powerful ally.

Part of the problem with the st911.org website is that, like almost all the 9-11 truth sites, the information is of varying quality.  Personally, I think Dr. Griffin is one of the best advocates.  No one can be an expert in everything.  But rational and intelligent people tend to come up with rational and intelligent conclusions. 

Russell is quite right:  Griffin is not, primarily, a conspiracy theorist.  He has written only two books that could be called "conspiracy theories", both of them on the topic of 9-11.  Compare that to Fetzer, (also on the st911.org website), who has written on JFK, the moon landing (he thinks it was faked), 9-11, etc.  Griffin has written many, many books, and with the exception of the two 9-11 books, they have all been scholarly religious tomes.  He is widely respected; Claremont is one of the most prestigious seminaries in the nation.  I have several of his non-911 books, and have been very impressed with his presentation of his subjects. 

It makes a difference, Kevin, because if you identify someone as a "conspiracy theorist" that indicates that the person is already inclined to believe somewhat extraordinary claims.  If I went around speaking about "Chemtrails" and "alien abductions", I would think that a person would be fair in not listening when I speak about something that seems incredible, such as 9-11.  But when persons who you know have a reputation for sane and reasoned thinking come to a conclusion that seems extraordinary, we tend to listen more because we figure that they have arrived at the extraordinary conclusions in the same manner that they arrive at their more mundane conclusions.  I think you would find that to be true of members of the 9-11 truth community such as Jones, Griffin, Ruppert, and Judge.  It is, by its very nature, filled with people who make extraordinary claims, and I don't say that you should accept what everyone says.  But when the above four make a statement, I listen because I have no reason to suspect that they tend to deviate from their otherwise sane and reasoned conclusions.  Of course, I'm not recommending that you suspend your own judgment, regardless of who says something, but I do suggest that certain people are more worthy of respect than others, and that applies regardless of the subject under consideration.

Caleb