DRM bashing is on Fridays. Today's only....oh.

@ Lone3wolf (sorry, I don't know yet how to multi-quote on GoG.com)

Re: the firefighters claims not taken seriously.

What Stephen Gregory says is he 'doesn't know if it means something.' That's not proof one way or the other. Rather, Loose Change used it as evidence of what someone had seen, and tried to put the peices together, and thus their conclusion of it being a controlled demolition. That's the conclusion I'm going with, after seeing the circumstantial evidence provided in Loose Change.

No, I didn't further research the people who were interviewed. What I did, instead upon 1st seeing Loose Change 5yrs ago, is talk to people who taught chemistry (a subject I've never thoroughly studied) at the university downtown in my city, showed them the video, and asked if jet fuel + impact of where the jets hit the twin towers was enough to bring the towers down. The answer I got was a firm negative. They went into further detail using the periodic table, heat and steel (as already addressed in Loose Change) and how that b/c the flames' smoke wasn't white (as in the phrase "white hot") but rather the smoke was
black, it meant that the fires were cooling down (not as hot as fire producing white smoke; this b/c black fire is indicative of a lack of oxygen). This to go w/the fact that they were burning for less than 3hrs before falling lead me to not believe the official story of the towers collapsing b/c of the jets.

Re: Insider trading.

Yes it was investigated as per the 9/11 Commission; done by authorities that haven't proven trustworthy in light of all the questions that 9/11/01 brought about. The 9/11 Commission paragraph you gave wrote "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades."

The questions that arise from this are: How did the FBI come to the conclusion that this investor had no ties to al Queda? Is al Queda being used as a bogie man to obscure the true folk who developed the 9/11/01 plan? With the amount of planning needed to pull off such a terrible attack, is it not out of the question that the US based options trading newsletter publishers deliberately did this to further obscure to true culprits? What credibility do the FBI have seeing the official story is that a plane hit the Pentegon while the photos they released show no concrete evidence of such things?

Now pretend for a second that there are no trolls that'll insult either of our opinions, no ignoramous people who hate the gov't simply b/c they hate their lives due to their own faults & need someone to blame, and that there's no difference between civilian & gov't workers, and still acknowledge that greed is a human trait that is everpresent among the plethora of people who lack ethics (this is what I do to encourage independent thought). W/all that in mind, I feel that the questions I've raised are quite valid: There's no sufficient evidence wherein I should believe the 9/11 Commission's report. Rather, given the greed we've continually seen in politics and financial sectors all across the world for centuries, it's much easier to believe (for me at least, given all what I've studied regarding 9/11/01; not saying I'm a genius, but I've seen enough wherein I'm firm in my beliefs) that insider trading was afoot, and the FBI is deliberately obscuring data that'd lead to incriminating people.

Re: Building 7

It's a debate that causes division. I'm in the camp that believes it fell via controlled demolition. This especially when considering Enron was the biggest news juss before 9/11/01 (along w/the Chandra Levy case); that along w/plenty of other data that could've dug into deeper financial deviltry was all lost to flames & debris -which, along w/the twin towers debris, was shipped off overseas before forensics could be done on them. Again, I'm not a bleeding genius, but I know enough to know that this goes against proper investigation procedure.


Re: Republicans spending more on impeaching Clinton than on the 9/11 Commission.

I agree about the needs of proof as you said. And I'll make clearly known here that I've not once attacked you or others I disagree with using any mud-slinging. Of course I'll get into it now & then w/folk who'll clown me, but I juss wanted to establish a peace, as that's the best way for fruitful discussion.

Re: Osama's connection to the Bush family & CIA

Oh of course! I saw Tom Hanks & Julia Roberts in Charlie Wilson's War. LOL!

Juss for clarity's sake, Osama was building the Mujihideen which after repelling the Russian invasion -and thus doing the citizens of the land much good - it morphed into the Taliban, which has been oppressing the citizens in the region the past many years.

The things I was alluding to in my question is that the Bin Laden family helped finance the Bush family's oil business (and Cheney had a high position w/Haliburton) I believe even before the establishment of the Mujihideen, thus establishing a connection that should raise eyebrows, especially since oil stocks have jumped big time since 9/11/01.

And I mentioned Marvin Bush, his security company's contract ending on 9/11/01 with Dulles Airport, where Flight 77 launched from on the same day. Obviously, everything is simply circumstantial (due to no trustworthy people yet doing an official investigation for us to see; evidence was taken away before it could've, should've been analysed), but all these dots should make everyone raise their suspicions. Mine were thoroughly peaked despite this -and I freely admit everything else- being circumstantial (and b/c everything about 9/11/01 provides so much circumstantial evidence which to me makes more sense than anything the gov't has said, I can't in good conscience trust the official story at all).

Re: Bryan C. Jack

Despite the arrogant way you phrased your question to me regarding him (even though I don't recall giving you any such treatment), I'll still answer you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/attacked/victims/v_235.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/1429.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/national/portraits/POGF-277-13JACK.html

I've never seen news about this guy in any conspiracy film or debunking film. But the links I've provided here jumped out at me 5yrs ago (when I 1st saw Loose Change 2nd Edition) when I started doing my own personal homework on 9/11/01. This b/c I was in my 2nd yr studying Accounting in college and thus know the value of those who are A-1 at what they do (unlike me, who barely graduated and aren't fit to do advanced intensive accounting work; nevertheless I know how to read balance sheets & study more financial data than those who didn't study the courses I did). So I freely admit that these links are the only
tangible data I have on him. But they speaks volumes to me.

1st off, its suspicious that they found his wedding ring. Gold melts in extreme heat. It's certainly is more suceptible to heat than steel is, I reckon. Unless his ring is made of some fire-resistant magically enhanced metal or is of big enough size wherein it was easily identifiable despite heat damage to it, of course.

2nd, there was the role he played for the Pentagon. He was, based on the data from the links, an indispensable accountant who was elite at what he did. As I wrote ealier, given what I know of accounting, and how good he was at his job (and I've family members on both sides who are professional accountants, much more to offer than my meager skills in it), I'm fully pursuaded he had what it takes to be the best whistle blower, to prove that military planes & missiles were used in the 9/11/01 attacks.

3rd, while he worked at his office in the Pentagon, he was actually a passenger on Flight 77, the same flight that the official story says crashed into the Pentagon. I find it very fucked up that the one day he isn't at his office, he's on a plane that 'reportedly' crashes into the building where he works, killing him. And they 'mariculously' found his wedding ring.

Another thing to add to this is the fact that the building was hit at the opposite end of where Donald Rumsfeld office is. And given Bryan C. Jack's important role w/the Pentagon, I'm quite sure his office was somewhere in the 'safe' zone away from the hit, perhaps even near Donald's.

So to me, it's not out of the question that they (the Bush Admin, here lead by Donald Rummy) deliberately sent Bryan on business to California on 9/11/01, purchasing his ticket to be on Flight 77, and murdered him thereof as the hit on the Pentagon would not have touched his office, where he would've been working on any other day. Killing him b/c he had the skills to do the forensic accounting to discovering what many people believe, that it was military planes crashing into the towers and a missile that hit the Pentagon (hence I also believe that those on Flight 77 were murdered in person; Loose Change implies the same w/Flight 93).

Re: Do I bother to research the issues I have w/the official story?

Yes I do. Obviously, there's alot of factors to research and thus I didn't go for them all as I wouldn't be able to understand all of them (like for one, I only learned today that cordite is obsolete), but of what I've researched, I'm convinced to not at all trust the official story, and lean fully to believing that it was an inside job.

Here is the collapse of wtc 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA&feature=related

You can see it clearly, this is a controlled demolition. That someone claims this is done by office fire is beyond me....

No, "Loose Change" didn't use anything : They're repeatedly shown to be abusing and misusing evidence, omitting salient facts, twisting and distorting quotes, taking things well out of context. All to fit their own ideas of "ZOMG! US Government is BAD!". We're supposed to take THEIR word that the Bush Administration (which pretty much fucked *EVERYTHING* they ever touched up) suddenly got so competent that they could pull this kind of attack off? Fooling expert engineers, mechanics, investigators, pilots and 99.995% of the world? O_o

Occam's Razor. It just does not compute that this was a US Government-led attack.
Circumstantial? lol. "Loose Change" wishes they had that much so as to be called circumstantial. That's a pathetically gross over-exaggeration of the lies and distortions promulgated in that series of (often revised) videos.
Also, eye-witness testimony is NOTORIOUSLY unreliable - even in courts, they'd rather have 1 solid piece of irrefutable evidence, than any 10 "eye-witnesses". You show 100 people the SAME event, and 10 minutes later, you'll get at least 105 different versions (guaranteed a few will "remember" something different and change their story).

So chemists know structural engineering, and materials testing?...ok. I buy that. They obviously know FAR more than experts in those fields. Let's begin with the aircraft impacts into the buildings : The towers had a number of floors destroyed from about the perimeter columns to the core. The impact sliced the aluminium aircraft into smaller pieces but the speed of the craft also sliced through the steel like butter.

The impacts also spread jet fuel into the buildings. Not all the fuel was used in the fire ball. In fact, eye witnesses say jet fuel was creating curtains of fire as it poured down from the impact zone. But the jet fuel only started the fires. It was never the NIST's contention that the jet fuel brought down the buildings as conspiracy theorists suggest. Conspiracy theorists use this as a straw man. They say the jet fuel couldn't have bowed the columns and sagged trusses. Just as lighter fluid doesn't cook your meat in a barbecue, the jet fuel didn't sag the trusses or bow the columns. You also can't leave this important factor out either. Conspiracy theorists say the columns couldn't have bowed and the trusses couldn't have sagged because the jet fuel wasn't hot enough and was used up within about 15 minutes of impact. That's like saying your meat didn't cook in your barbecue because the lighter fluid burns too quickly. All the jet fuel did was act as lighter fluid and intensify the fire for about 15 minutes.

The two major factors in the collapse itself were the fires and the lack of fire proofing around the trusses and some columns. With fireproofing, the floor system was rated for 2 hours of continuous fire. Without it, that time is cut dramatically.
Engineers and safety inspectors in the building before that day regularly reported missing insulation from the structural steel - especially when winds were high (early-mid spring).

One of the BIG lies in the "truth" movement is that UL certifies steel. An ex-employee named Kevin Ryan, who worked as a water tester at UL, said "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." He says he knows this because UL certified steel components of the World Trade Centre and that someone from the company who was connected with the UL testing told him this fact.

Now for some facts the "truth" movement doesn't tell you.

UL doesn't certify steel components like a steel truss or column. They certify assemblies. That means they certified the total assembly, all put together. They also didn't replicate the impact levels. They replicated a floor system with fireproofing as it would have been before the impact. They also tested it with various fireproofing thicknesses. The test trusses were physically undamaged and had intact fireproofing for the purpose of standard rating. What this means is that Mr. Ryan doesn't even know what his former employer does, much less what it did during the World Trade Centre investigation. Maybe that's why they fired him...

The other lie in the "truth" movement is the characterization of what the NIST said was the cause of the collapse.

1) The NIST NEVER said burning jet fuel was the cause of the collapse. Only that it was a factor;
2) If the assembly stayed together, it only SUPPORTS the NIST hypothesis that the trusses pulled the columns in;
3) The UL test caused the test trusses to sag even with fireproofing : http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf

Sidenote : Kevin Ryan is the editor of the "scholars" Journal of 911 Studies and one of the "peers" who review their so called "peer" reviewed papers like the flying elephant paper ( http://www.jod911.com/thirdjet.pdf ). It took the "scholars" months to debunk their own paper which Mr. Ryan should have debunked himself. Something which took a qualified person about 2 minutes.

And don't get me started on Jim Fetzer's absurd claims about asbestos being used in both towers (Only one, and only upto the 40th? floor, IIRC. He claims both, all the way up, and other absurdities).

Still with me? Good, because now it gets better!
With the damage wreaked by the planes on the support columns, and trusses, and assemblies, pretty much stripping them of the majority of their fire-proofing insulation (which was threadbare to begin with), the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel. Conspiracy theorists point to the UL tests which show the trusses sagged but never fail to say the building should have stood. But what conspiracy theorists don't tell you is that the test was done with a minimum of fire proofing on the trusses. The test was never meant to find out what caused the truss to fail. It was testing the fire proofing to see if it was up to code. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040829130757.htm

As the fires moved on to find new sources of fuel (Desks, seats, paper, plastic, etc..) [Pay attention to these fires spreading - because it's important for your "black smoke" later ;)] the expanded truss cools and contracts. This contraction happened over a period of time and over many floors. This is a very important point, because had it only been one floor contracting the perimeter may not have buckled as much.

If a floor sags, it pulls both the perimeter columns and core columns toward the centre of the floor. Because the core columns are stronger than the perimeter, the perimeter is the side that gets pulled in.

There are plenty of photographs from every angle which show the slow progression of sagging of trusses and bowing perimeter columns. It would be impossible for the NIST or anyone else to fabricate the photos. It was one of the most photographed and videoed events in history. It would be easy to prove the NIST is involved in a mass murder if they doctored photos. Yet this is exactly what some conspiracy theorists suggest! O_o

Further reading on the sagging of the trusses and supports : http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf < really read this. Don't ignore it, or skim it. READ it. It's got some math in, so you can confirm their findings. (it has been peer-reviewed though, so don't get too exotic in your distortions ;) )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChWMNRo3h0
If that was a demolition explosion, why is there no ejection of debris characteristic in Controlled Demolition before the event? Only after the building begins to fall do we see the debris from the pancaking floors eject outward as the floors force air out of the windows.
Look at as many videos of the collapse as you can find. They're all the same.

wow a lot of wall of text

or give us the link where you got the sources from :)

Google searches.

NIST site
Various engineering blogs
Debunking911.com
screwloosechange.com
911myths.com
google videos
YouTube (Irony! Yes, I know, but there are a LOT of debunking videos uploaded there for ease and bandwidth concerns on other sites - ditto google vids, above)
Structural Mechanics blogs and websites.
University(-ies) engineering department sites.

Loads more. It's all out there. NIST's is fairly comprehensive, if a bit too technical for the layman. The Engineering and construction blogs provide math, and experiments and further reading sources to explain how and what happened.

Quit wasting your time.

You can link as many webpages as you like from here, just as Slash11 can link as many as he likes.

Neither of you can still prove anything. Facts can be and have been fabricated, by both sides. "Maths" are subject to GIGO when trying to prove anything and any statistic can be twisted to mislead, and last and not least: This is the goddamn internet. Any idiot can say anything they like, but that doesn't necessarily make any of it true.

You're both just as big fools as each other. Him for his baseless crackpot theories, and you for your blind faith in the obviously incomplete "official stories".

The real truth of 9/11 is most likely far more complicated and unpleasant than anything we've seen posted in here so far, and you can bet your ass that no party involved in it is clean of wrong-doing, whether that be actually orchestrating the whole thing for the many financial, political or religious benefits that various groups got out of it, turning a blind eye and letting it happen for the same reason, or just being caught completely by surprise but turning it to their advantage to wage an illegal war anyway.

Far more interesting is the stuff that came after 9/11.

I suspect that the closest thing to the truth we'll ever see will be to see who reaped what benefits from the whole thing, and to guess at their motivations and the possible influences their could have had in the whole messy affair.

It would still be a guess, but I bet it'd be a lot closer to the truth than most of the garbage we've seen in this thread so far.

It's like the 1970s just disappeared.

the truth is hard to find expacily on the internet if there is a conspiricy you think they put it on the net? :)

lol. Math is a hell of a lot more secure than "unfounded belief" and "provable falsehoods" and whatever these "Truthers" spout as "fact". Math can also be peer-reviewed for errors so your GIGO is invalid ;)

Got anything to base those rather large leaps of imagination on, or just more mindless drivel spouted by momma's boys living in cellars?

Didn't think so.
Lack of evidence is NOT proof of existence.

no it means they did a good job to get most of the proof

...which is an extremely well documented fact.

sorry im not a native english person i ment get rid most of the proof :)