September 11 2001 - thoughts, a decade on....?

[djarvik]

That s stunning...

Did you worked in the North or South Tower?

The North Tower was hit around 98th floor, the South Tower 78th.


It s a little bit off topic: But do you are a practioneer of Krav Maga?

I was in north and my father was in south.


If I am a practitioner? ...no. I practice TS3 only lately. Did I ever learned it? Yes, we kinda had to as a part of basic training.

[Saarbrigga]

I was in north and my father was in south.

I hope your father was also lucky!

To Krav Maga: I asked because i like it very much. I am very interested in martial arts, did Karate, a little bit Judo and Boxing years ago, but they all lack of something.
KM is imo one of the best self defence systems on the planet today, very effective stuff.

You live in NY right? What s about the new World Trade Center aka Freedom Tower? I ve heard they want to rebuilt it, make it more higher as before, but just 1 tower instead of 2.

[coke4]

You live in NY right? What s about the new World Trade Center aka Freedom Tower? I ve heard they want to rebuilt it, make it more higher as before, but just 1 tower instead of 2.

Gunna be a sweet looking building.



I didnt realise they had actually started building, when i was there at the end of 2008 i thought i read that they were still deciding what to build out of like 3 options, obviously my memory is somewhat wrong

[Moralspain]

looks gorgeous

[beltic caldy]

No it would have melted, but through the pure force of the plane and the heat would have weakened the structure.
Your physics is also somewhat flawed as you seem to be forgetting velocity.
The law of momentum states that momentum is equal to mass by velocity, there for the building would only have to be collapsing at around 5 mph to continue going down through the building

???????

Both Towers fell at speed of acceleration due to gravity Coke - please don't talk to be about physics. The speed of fall is not disputed - that means that an object dropped from the same height at the same time as the tower(s) fell, with nothing but air below it, would hit the ground at the same time as the uppermost remaining floors. Without another force at play, the rate of collapse of both towers, and the WTC7 should have slowed as it progressed, not accelerated, as it did.

Re the melting sub-structure theory? Check your facts again please. The melting point of the steel used was too high to explain such uniform and dramatic collapse - the burning fuel could not have sustained, uniformly around the buildings enough heat to collapse all of the support structures - and even if it somehow magically did, they should have collapsed only a few, if any of the floors below the hit-zones.

I don't know who did it - there are many situations and people that benefited greatly from the events of the aftermath, i know that. Once again, refute the evidence if you will, but keep it factual please - your grasp of the physics here is fundamentally flawed.

[beltic caldy]

When I was about to enter the building - the first plain hit.

What would happen if you had enter the building 15 mins before?

@ beltic

thanks for the link, but i already knew it.

I watched many documentarys about the event, but i can t make a final conclusion.

There are things which don t add up, but otherwise many conspiracy theories are bull****!

Did you ever seen the Loose Change crew Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas on "Hardfire"?
They had a talk with some 911 debunker named Mark Roberts. He produced the movie "Screw Loose Change" and proved almost anything of Loose Change is 2nd hand information.

If you have time to watch it, here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7tMHMQ8 ... re=related

Cheers bro - will watch and get back to you. You've seen the 'Blueprint for Truth' movie? It was the only one I was aware of that I hadn't seen - I like the way they deal purely with factual evidence, staying away from conjecture/theory.

[jayl0ve]

IF the US government had foreknowledge etc....what's to stop this happening again?

Nothing...absolutely nothing. The US government had foreknowledge of the attacks on the naval base of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and did nothing to stop/prevent it. Of course, the US immediately (happily) entered WW2 after that 'surprise attack'.

The US government knew about this impending attack as well and used it as the impetus for a war for oil (a 'war' for which no less than 3 of my personal friends are fighting for in Afghanistan).

Business as usual.

[Bowler2151]

i am not naive enough to think the government never makes cover ups but this isnt one of them. This loose change film has had to be remade about 3 or 4 times because they keep getting debunked. That says right there these conspiracy theories have been very inaccruate. The history channel has even made 2 seperate documentaries debunking this and one of them had the people from loose change on it.

Also the more people who know about a secert, the more likely someone will tell the secert. In 10 years the thousands of government officals who would have to know about this to get it done still have said nothing years later. It would be impossible to keep thousands of peoples mouths shut for that long.

Plus the government can shut down any website they like so why would they even let the regular people even get the ideas of an inside job in there head.

George Bush was told a month before 9/11 that al-Qaeda wants to attack the United States but he was told throughout the spring and summer the samething. Bin Laden had wanted to attack the United States since 1997 but predicting how and where he willconduct it would be very hard to guess.

This wiki leaks website that has been around for a year and I would think there was a 9/11 cover up they would be on it in a heartbeat. There doing nothing with a 9/11 cover up, there investigating cover ups in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The U.S government already find them as a threat but if there were a cover up im pretty sure wiki leaks would already know of it.

I could say more but this is enough to read for now.

[beltic caldy]

i am not naive enough to think the government never makes cover ups but this isnt one of them. This loose change film has had to be remade about 3 or 4 times because they keep getting debunked. That says right there these conspiracy theories have been very inaccruate. The history channel has even made 2 seperate documentaries debunking this and one of them had the people from loose change on it.

Also the more people who know about a secert, the more likely someone will tell the secert. In 10 years the thousands of government officals who would have to know about this to get it done still have said nothing years later. It would be impossible to keep thousands of peoples mouths shut for that long.

Plus the government can shut down any website they like so why would they even let the regular people even get the ideas of an inside job in there head.

George Bush was told a month before 9/11 that al-Qaeda wants to attack the United States but he was told throughout the spring and summer the samething. Bin Laden had wanted to attack the United States since 1997 but predicting how and where he willconduct it would be very hard to guess.

This wiki leaks website that has been around for a year and I would think there was a 9/11 cover up they would be on it in a heartbeat. There doing nothing with a 9/11 cover up, there investigating cover ups in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The U.S government already find them as a threat but if there were a cover up im pretty sure wiki leaks would already know of it.

I could say more but this is enough to read for now.

No problems man - but answer me one, just one single question - do you believe, as per the official account, that WTC7 came down by fire alone? Thats really all I want to know - if not, lets have another investigation, if so, well then I'd like to have answers explaining your thinking - limit this to WTC7 for now : )

[Bowler2151]

yes i do believe the report.

“Not so fast,” the 9/11 Truth Movement might say. How do you explain the collapse of WTC Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane? Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists maintain that the collapse of this building at about 5:20 pm on 9/11 would not have occurred unless it was already prepared for demolition. The conspiracy theorists assume that damage sustained by WTC 7 during the attack was not sufficient to trigger its collapse. The site wtc7.net claims that “fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires.” They further claim that any damage from falling debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 would have needed to be symmetrical to trigger the pancaking collapse of WTC 7.10

These arguments only reveal the assumptions of their authors. First, the fires burning in WTC 7 were extremely extensive, as Figure 3 shows. The reason this is not obvious from 9/11 Truth Movement presentations and documentaries is that they tend to only show the north side of WTC 7, selectively causing the building to appear both far less ravaged by fire and structural damage than it actually was (see Figure 4).

Firefighter Richard Banaciski notes the difference in appearance between the north and south sides of the building in his first-person account:

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.11


Figure 3 WTC 7 seen from the Southwest side, showing the true extent of fire and structural damage
Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.12 Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained. The planned demolition hypothesis, on the other hand, fails to explain why collapse would begin at exactly the point where damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would strike WTC 7. And while the makers of the documentary Loose Change comment that WTC 7 “fell straight down, into a convenient pile,” the truth is that the pile of debris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across, hardly the kind of “convenient pile” described by conspiracy theorists.13

For those who believe that Building 7 fell due to controlled demolition, some of the most powerful “evidence” seemingly comes from WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s alleged “confession” that he authorized the tower’s destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein says:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.14


Figure 4 The image of WTC 7 commonly shown by the 9/11 Truth Movement, showing apparently minimal damage to the building
To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones at prisonplanet.com, this quote seems to be a “smoking gun” because they interpret the phrase “pull it” to be “industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.”15 Silverstein seems to be saying that he and the firefighters decided to pull (destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall after authorizing the demolition. No building could be controllably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy theorists go on to argue, so WTC 7 must have been prepared for demolition long in advance.

On closer inspection, this supposedly devastating evidence does not seem to mean what the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There is far from unanimous industry agreement that the phrase “pull it” always signifies a controlled demolition with explosives — more specific phrases such as “pull away” would be used to designate the specific operation to be performed.16 And of course, “pull” has many common language uses quite separate from demolition lingo. But if Silverstein wasn’t describing a decision to destroy WTC 7, what could the words “pull it” mean? A good place to seek the answer is this September 9, 2005 statement by Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesperson for Larry Silverstein:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building [emphasis added].17

McQuillan’s response also indicated that firefighters were present at WTC 7 to evacuate tenants, and worked at the site until late in the afternoon shortly before the collapse occurred. There is in fact abundant evidence that firefighters were present in and around WTC 7 in evacuation and rescue missions until late in the day on 9/11. As one account describes:

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center … It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time [emphasis added] and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn’t] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely.18

Another first responder adds that there were “tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled [emphasis added] us out.”19 The first-hand accounts of rescue operations at WTC 7 tell a consistent story, and the latter quote also uses the word “pull” to describe the removal of firefighters from the vicinity of the building, just as McQuillan’s statement does. Indeed, there is large agreement between McQuillan’s response and the testimony of the firefighters, including the fact that:

firefighters were in fact in the vicinity of WTC 7 on 9/11;
their activities involved evacuation and rescue missions;
firefighters remained near WTC 7 until late in the afternoon of 9/11;
firefighters realized that WTC 7 would probably fall by approximately 3 pm on 9/11; and
firefighters pulled back from the building shortly after this realization, and watched the building collapse at approximately 5:20 pm. Despite the objections of conspiracy theorists, the “official story” is both logically coherent and supported by evidence.
By contrast, the story told by the 9/11 Truth Movement is riddled with holes. It assumes that Larry Silverstein destroyed WTC Building 7, presumably in order to claim a huge insurance payoff. But if this is so, why would he tell the world of his plot on a PBS special? Furthermore, what relationship does Silverstein have with the United States government who, according to conspiracy theorists, destroyed the WTC buildings in order to terrorize its citizens into accepting domination by a police state?20 And if the government controlled the demolition of the WTC buildings in order to strike fear into its citizens, why one this one case would it wait until all of the tenants were evacuated from WTC 7 so that there were no reported casualties?21 The government’s strategy appears wildly inconsistent in the Truth Movement account — killing nearly 3,000 people in the destruction of the two main towers, while allowing an entire afternoon for the tenants of WTC 7 to escape. We should also note that the alleged 9/11 plot was needlessly complicated, since the building was wired for a controlled demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes — why not just do the controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of your choice?

There’s also the problem that, as even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits, prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort. Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3 towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls — that scenario is unlikely in the extreme.


http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/ the pictures they refer to are on this site, along with explaninations of the other 9/11 conspiracy theories. the random numbers that get higher starting from 10 and goes to 21 thats where they cited there sources. this isnt some website the government made to gave an explaination of 9/11, its a site that puts myths to the test.

[beltic caldy]

Hi Bowler - thanks for 'your' reply.

I have a couple of problems with this response - well, 3, I suppose, to be accurate.

1) Already alluded to - this is cut and paste work - your own specific thoughts would have been nice - tho if this captures or parallels many of your thoughts/feelings, fair enough.

2) I'm not, in what seems to be the modern interpretation 'a conspiracy theorist' - I am a highly scientifically trained person, not satisfied with the explanations presented for these events based on the presented evidence. To go throwing labels and assigning these titles to people or groups with whom we disagree is a dangerous activity. While I may have sympathy with the views of some of what has been labelled 'conspiracy theory', I am only asking one question at this time - why did WTC7 fall the way it did? I believe the official report to be either mistaken or a lie and would like to see one which asks more relevant and analytical questions - rather than basis on a single flawed hypothesis.

3) Not one word in the above response addresses the problem of the uniformity of collapse of WTC7 - not one - this is the pivotal question/problem with the collapse, yet, as per the official investigation, this key critical question is not answered - it's not even addressed. I don't say here 'why not?' - i simply say 'answer that question please, or get me someone who can' - aside from the use of controlled demolition-explosives, how could a building collapse in that uniform, free-fall manner?



Finally - I don't have answers - none. But that doesn't mean i'm going to rush to a flawed conclusion. If explosives were planted in WTC7 (and the others), when was it done and who did it, and how was it kept quiet? Don't know x 3, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.

I seek/require a better explanation and much better analysis - the official version(s) in the case of WTC7 do not suffice.

[Bowler2151]

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. there is no extradordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.

First off why would they use controled demolition only on the North and South tower and WTC7? The other buildings around them didnt go down. Why would WTC7 collapse hours after the North and South tower did? Wouldnt it be much more logicial to collapse all the buildings around the same time? Since the firefighters evacuated WTC7 thinking the building could collapse, are you trying to say the firefighters had something to do with the collapse of WTC7?

If the government wants to do a controled demolition theres know reason to even use airplanes. Using an airplane after all the explosives were set would have a major impact on all the explosives already set in the building and probably a good chance some of the explosives could go off by accident due to the impact of the plane.

The hundreds of thousands of people to keep this a secert and these hundreds of people have to go into these buildings plant the bombs completely undetected. The planning and training for something like this would take years. It would take months even years of studing the structure of the building and survilance of the building.

Theres no building that they could ever use to train to be able to set bombs so quickly. Even if they were to take weeks to plant the bombs, how would know one working in the building notice strange things being placed in the building. That would mean most likely, they would have to get people who work in the twin towers to help them carry the bombs throughout the building.

The U.S governement using this as a way to get into the middle east to get more oil is ridiculous. The U.S already imports more oil than any other country from the middle east so what would be the point of getting even more oil? I think it was either the summer of 2007 or 2006 when a barrel of oil reached its highest price ever, so if the U.S invaded the middle east to get cheaper oil, what happened that summer already disproves the U.S wasnt getting cheaper oil.

Also the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, so if that was also done by the government why not just bring the building down then?

[beltic caldy]

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. there is no extradordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.

First off why would they use controled demolition only on the North and South tower and WTC7? The other buildings around them didnt go down. Why would WTC7 collapse hours after the North and South tower did? Wouldnt it be much more logicial to collapse all the buildings around the same time? Since the firefighters evacuated WTC7 thinking the building could collapse, are you trying to say the firefighters had something to do with the collapse of WTC7?

If the government wants to do a controled demolition theres know reason to even use airplanes. Using an airplane after all the explosives were set would have a major impact on all the explosives already set in the building and probably a good chance some of the explosives could go off by accident due to the impact of the plane.

The hundreds of thousands of people to keep this a secert and these hundreds of people have to go into these buildings plant the bombs completely undetected. The planning and training for something like this would take years. It would take months even years of studing the structure of the building and survilance of the building.

Theres no building that they could ever use to train to be able to set bombs so quickly. Even if they were to take weeks to plant the bombs, how would know one working in the building notice strange things being placed in the building. That would mean most likely, they would have to get people who work in the twin towers to help them carry the bombs throughout the building.

The U.S governement using this as a way to get into the middle east to get more oil is ridiculous. The U.S already imports more oil than any other country from the middle east so what would be the point of getting even more oil? I think it was either the summer of 2007 or 2006 when a barrel of oil reached its highest price ever, so if the U.S invaded the middle east to get cheaper oil, what happened that summer already disproves the U.S wasnt getting cheaper oil.

Also the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, so if that was also done by the government why not just bring the building down then?

i simply say 'answer that question please, or get me someone who can' - aside from the use of controlled demolition-explosives, how could a building collapse in that uniform, free-fall manner?

Do you think the collapse of WTC7 is soley down to fire + structural damage incurred that day? I don't - simple as that, and would like another investigation based on that.

Re the plethora of other questions you ask, the obvious tone being 'if you don't have answers, I'm right' - i don't have answers, but I'm not saying you're wrong - I want to know why WTC7 collapsed - and more specifically, I want an official investigation that is actually an investigation. Fire + structural damage cannot explain the nature of the collapse of that building - therefore there is another explanation - what is it? Forget about every other item at the moment - answer me that question, having studied just the facts - no conjecture or hearsay or 'conspiracy theory' - look at the footage and explain how a building like that can collapse in the manner it did.

I feel like we're going around in circles here without you ever addressing this one question - maybe you'd be so kind.

Why did WTC7 collapse - if you say fire/structural-damage then fine - but I disagree - what, all the fire's were burning at uniform temperature all the way around the building, at the same time? Hmmmmm......

Let's agree to differ on the subject - but do me a favour, and at least answer my question re WTC7 with your own opinion and/or fact - not further 'why would this and why would that' and discussions of likelihood/improbability.

[Saarbrigga]

Danny Jowenko, a dutch expert in controlled demolition, says WTC 1 and 2 had nothing to do with controlled demolition.

But he also stated building 7 was a controlled demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc


2 things on 9/11 stinks, 2 things which could never debunked to this day:

1) Willy Rodriguez, the genetor of WTC, said there was an explosion in the basement of the North Tower, prior to the plane hit it.

2) The molten steel in the basement after the collaps. It was found 3 months after 9/11. Can jet fuel burn for 3 months and reaches temperatures of over 1000 degree Fahrenheid?

[djarvik]

Instructions

1. Listen to the question being asked of you. Before you can avoid answering the question you must carefully listen and understand the question. Although many times the questions seem clear-cut, often there is an underlying meaning to the question and if you don't listen carefully you may actually end up answering the question.

2. Begin your non-answer with background information. A common staple of political debates is timed answers so if you begin with background information in response to the question posed, you'll have exhausted your allowed time before you get a chance to answer. Your background information should include a laundry list of your accomplishments pertaining to the policy or issue addressed in the question.

3. Live by the words "It's not a yes or no answer." When pressed for not answering a question, the best answer is to remind the moderator that the subject isn't as simple as a yes or no. Then go back to listing your accomplishments as they relate to the policy or issue addressed in the question.

4. Refuse to give specifics even when pressed. Although this may seem sketchy you are actually justified to refuse. It isn't politically savvy to give away all your secrets up front, besides the more details you give the more ammunition you give your opponents to go after you.

5. Repeat catchphrases when pressed on issues. Throughout the course of a campaign you will create a few phrases that resonate with voters, when you get backed into a wall rely on those phrases. Some media may criticize you for it, but a prepared answer at a later date can rectify the situation.

6. Sing the praises of your opponents when a question calls for a critique. Answering questions about your opponents' shortcomings is bad news and the only way to get around it is to talk about how great they are, how much you respect them, and how close you are. After that has been covered, go back to why you are qualified to handle the issues on which you were questioned.