http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/20 ... nkers.html
The wider implication of course is that "all" facts or claims that dispute the government account of 9/11 "fall apart." And that is quite the heart of a dishonest analysis.
1. No steel-framed building before or since 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire.
Irrelevant. Lower structures did collapse, there were partial collapses where concrete elements and intensive firefighting were possible, and the thesis affirms the consequent, arguing that because fires have not led to this specific event in the past, they cannot do so now."
"Irrelevant?" Hardly. One hundred years of precedent meaningless? This fact (and it is a fact about steel framed structures, and it did not "fall apart" as claimed) is important for several reasons. It led to hundreds of firefighters rushing into the Towers for starters.
Counterpoint actually mentions "partial collapses." That is quite the difference. Total and complete rapid collapses into the buildings footprint did not happen to steel framed buildings, ever.
See what a real "collapse" looks like, as compared to controlled demoltion. If you don't understand that the buildings in question had large intact structures -- good as new -- completely unaffected by any fire or impact damage (below and above the impact zones), then you really shouldn't be weighing in.
The thing that makes it most relevant however is the illegal destruction of evidence that occurred, throwing away most of the crucial forensic evidence in the most absurd possible way. Fire Engineering Magazine famously called the FEMA operation a "half baked farce" and stated that "no one is checking the evidence for anything." They demanded that the steel which was being treated like "garbage" be kept and that the destruction of evidence "must stop immediately."
NIST has recently admitted as much: "...the core columns recovered from floors where fires were known to have occured represent 1 percent of the columns in those areas."
They then admit that it is not possible to "...extrapolate from such a small sample size..."
They have only (allegedly) 1% of the relevant steel? They could and should have easily had 100% of all the steel. They "had" every single bit of those buildings in their custody at one point. It wasn't stolen by Osama.
So please don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining lemonade.
2. No official agency (FAA, FBI, or the airlines) has ever released a list of the 9/11 passengers. But within hours, the FBI released a list of the hijackers.
False. The complete passenger lists were released in the Moussaoui trial. The FBI identified the suspects easily because few made any attempt to disguise their names on flight and credit card records and they were among the few non-U.S. citizens and nearly the only passengers with Arabic names on their flights, enabling the FBI to identify their names an other details within hours."
Unfortunately, the FBI has not proven that they actually got on the planes. There were 19 men, no? So there should be 19 airport videos at the bare minimum showing that they were actually entering the gate where the planes were that day. These should have time codes and be verifiable.
Speaking of the planes, and the alleged gate they were at, we have yet another anomaly, straight from the National Transportation Safety Board, and another from the FBI.
The NTSB literally says in their "Factual Report" that Flight 175 originated at Boston Heliport, code 1MA3, instead of Logan Airport (code BOS). Further, they give no origination at all for Flight 11 and have left it blank.
These files were recently REMOVED from NTSB's website, I just learned during the writing of this article.
FBI has lied about recovering the black boxes from the WTC site. Fireman Nicholas Demassi recoverd these data recorders, and the federal government has made them disappear. Highly suspicious.
Couple that with the FBI refusing to identify the 4 aircraft allegedly used in the attack. The government has not proven that even the planes they say did it were the ones that crashed. If you recall, Operation Northwoods literally described a scenario of swapping planes for a false flag terror attack. Feasibility was established 39 years prior to 9/11. This possibility means that absolute, positive identification is required, and should be demanded.
The government has not met minimal legal standards for a "burden of proof" regarding many, many aspects of the 9/11 attacks.
3. Multiple air-defense drills were planned for the morning of 9/11. These exercises left only two fighter jets available to protect the entire Northeastern United States.
False. There’s a distinct lack of evidence for any of these exercises adversely affecting the response to 9/11, and is based on shoddy speculative research by a guy writing under a pseudonym."
A lack of evidence? Eighty four minutes warning, and the military headquarters at the Pentagon is struck without anyone noticing an attacking plane? You miss a lot of evidence, if you don't want to see it.
The claim about "two fighter jets" is inaccurate, and not my claim. But numerous aircraft were moved north and out of range to respond. There were also simulated attacks staged on the military communications networks, during the actual attacks. False radar blips were witnessed on FAA flight controller screens leading to the possibility of "22" hijacked aircraft. And a mysterious white jet was circling around the White House.
The presence of exercises also gave Dick Cheney a military role, where otherwise he is not in the chain of command. Cheney was placed in charge of all "military preparedness" exercises and several were rescheduled to coincide with the 9/11 date.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission (omitted from Report) completely discredits Cheney, and the Report's own claims about that pentagon plane. They knew where it was, and they had time to react.
These are all suspicious. Too many coincidences to just blindly write them all off. Unless that is what you wanted to do in the first place.
4. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper and part of the World Trade Center complex, was not struck by a plane but collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11th, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition.
"False. It was struck by debris from the WTC, had raging fires that could not be fought, was judged by firefighters to collapse hours before, it took 15 seconds to fall, not 6.5s, and it did not collapse in the 'exact manner of a controlled demolition' as certified by all experts (the claim derives from one expert who saw only one video angle)."
For a prewritten, supposedly thought out piece, you sure don't document much. I guess we're supposed to guess all your fictional "experts" who dance around in your head.
Your first statement is false. The building was not struck by a plane. Thus, the first claim was true, and yours is false. If we're going to ignore that "debris" and a jetliner are in fact different, then there's not much need to talk about anything at all.
The "firefighters" who "judged" it were TERRIFIED from the morning's events at the WTC. Of course they were going to err on the side of safety. That does not make a collapse into the footprint at quite a rapid rate (have you bothered to watch it?) an eventuality. Those are simply the opinions of a terrified group, which happens to defy that 100 years of precedent you seem to have not thought about.
Aysmmetrical damage is what we have: one side of a four sided rectangle was damaged. How does this translate into global symmetrical collapse into the building's footprint?
Well, in fact we don't know. Because not even Dept. of Commerce political entity NIST can explain building 7 without causing a lot of laughter and head shaking, and so they have opted not to try, to date.
As far as similarities to controlled demolition go, you haven't bothered to specify what it is you believe is dissimilar. Typical.
If the duration is your main point, you neglect that timed sequences are programmed. They can be altered, and can be executed in stages. If the point is to give the impression of a longer "collapse", then it is possible for non-crucial supports to be taken out over a longer time period in order to communicate the effect of "collapse." Meaning: your timing claim proves nothing.
Then we have all those witnesses reporting "explosions." And all those firefighters too. And this one, oddly edited out of an HBO documentary when the explosion would be the "money shot", the "draw", and cause for more concern, and more viewers.
5. There was no visible airplane debris where Flight 93 supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania – only a smoking hole in the ground, much like a bomb crater.
"Utter nonsense, indicitive of the kind of rumors that passes for evidence in these circles."
Actually, the first description is somewhat accurate, and you don't seem to know anything about it.
I don't think there's a case there, as the wreckage (allegedly) ended up underground for the most part. But your ignorant dismissal is indicative of the lack of investigation on the part of typical "debunkers."
6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could cause the towers’ steel structure to buckle or fail.
"False or misleading. A huge scientific and engineering study (NIST), including a large number of peer-reviewed journal articles have described and explained the events satisfactorily, in that a weakening of the structure by the airplane impact, the uncontrolled fires, and the structural design specifics sufficed to force the collapse. The quoted temperature facts are partially false, misleading or irrelevant."
We get it. You side with the government. Whatever they say is ok with you. But funny you should bring up "False or misleading", because NIST also said, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Here is what engineering professor William Rice has said about this matter:
"The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. (...)
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more." -William Rice P.E., Why the towers fell: Two theories
7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported.
"Technically dubious or false, plus most calls were made on in-seat airphones. More importantly, the claim of 'fake phone calls' requires the complicity of the surviving families: go tell them to their faces."
Untrue, and poor rebuttal. No complicity is needed if they are fooled by voice morphing technology.
Next, some calls that were claimed to have been made (Barbara Olson) were apparently never connected at all, according to the FBI at the Moussaoui trial. Next, "cell phones" were clearly claimed, and not Airphones for some number of calls.
The Todd Beamer call was 13 minutes with an operator, rather than with a "family" member who would know him. His "Let's roll," call is odd, as is Mark Bingham's and as are other calls referring to guns onboard the plane, which is to this day unexplained.
Bottom line, we are being deliberately kept in the dark on the phone call records, and these calls have been exploited for propaganda purposes by the administration.
It's odd arguing why we need full disclosure from this criminal regime who let these attacks happen in so many ways it boggles the mind. Make them prove ALL of this evidence is true and real, and verifiable. Why would you oppose that? Why would you expect anything less?
8. 9/11 was immediately declared an “act of war” by President Bush. The rubble from the Twin Towers’ collapse was carted away and the steel sold and shipped overseas without examination.
"False and misleading. Rubble was carted away fast to find possible survivors in the buried basement floors. All debris was screened according to a list of criteria indicating damage or structural importance. These segments were kept for investigation, the rest was sold for recycling (Asian countries buy up steel worldwide due to their massive production needs)."
Answers like this one are why I need to smack your ignorant bullshit down. The first point is "Act of War." Your first statement (as usual, despite the context) is "False."
Yes, Dick Cheney standing next to Bush on television corrected Bush and told him rather than a "crime", that 9/11 was an "Act of war."
I already have insider quotes by the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine and NIST about the paltry amount of steel kept. The fact that you don't see the problem here destroys your credibility.
I hardly think that the United States of America was needing to make a quick buck off of the skeletal remains of the World Trade Center. And I am quite certain they could have found some patch of ground on US soil to store and study the 9/11 steel, rather than having China turn it into toys or whatever.
Your points are apologetics for thugs and tyrants, and not very convincing.
9. Enormous profits were made by insiders on plummeting stock prices of the two airlines involved in 9/11 – American and United. Federal law protects their identities.
"Resolved: This alleges there were insiders because some investors gained, putting the wagon before the horse. The stock story has since made it to snopes.com as a well documented urban myth."
"Well documented," says the man who documents nothing. Have you read the Snopes piece?
It's all the word of the fraudulent 9/11 Commission, the biggest cover up in the history of the US. What do they say?
"A single US based institutional investor with no conceivable connection to Al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts..."
It's not a connection to "Al Qaeda" we're concerned about. Now is it?
They don't seem to have investigated Mayo Shattuck and the unclaimed $2.5 million trades, connected -- coincidentally -- back to CIA #3 man Buzzy Krongard (who used to have Shattuck's job at the bank that made the trades). Shattuck resigned immediately after 9/11 without giving a reason.
There were other suspicious trades reported on other companies affected by the attacks (insurers, WTC tenants), which receive no treatment there.
So easy to "debunk" stuff when you just don't want to know. The debunking ignores a lot of what is known, and trusts a bogus investigation staffed by the White House.
10. Accepting victims’ compensation barred 9/11 families from further discovery through litigation.
"Misleading. Out of court settlements always work that way. The way it's phrased falsely insinuates that compensated victims have no other way of further discovery."
Not misleading at all. It's true. They agree not to sue in order to cash in on the fund. What other way to "discovery" is there, if they are barred from suing?
The families are allowed to "discover" things in the newspaper?
You are a poor debunker, 'counterpoint.' Your vague dismissals aren't really worth the time.
I have used you to frame the debate in a more honest light and to prompt people to dig deeper than your cursory spin. You personally, I could care less. You probably still have that Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on your gas guzzler.