September 16th, 2007

Some Questions on 9/11


photo credit: peace chicken

Like many others, I have questions about 9/11.

Readers of this blog may correctly know me to be one who enjoys asking questions. Evidence of this is found in just the last post I wrote.

The events surrounding the attack and collapse of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, perhaps provide an unrivaled opportunity to question an “official” story. Questions have been asked (and often left unanswered) regarding attacks—both foreign and domestic—throughout our nation’s history. But 9/11, unlike any other event in recent decades, has become the object of skeptics, doubters, patriots, and conspiracy theorists the world over.

Why is this so? What is there in the government’s official 9/11 report to question? Are there unanswered questions? Are the questions that have been answered solid and truthful? Why do an astounding 67% of Americans believe that the government had something to do with this day’s events?

Being one of the 67% in this poll, and having had a desire in recent days to share some thoughts with friends of mine on this subject matter, I offer the following questions and comments regarding the events surrounding 9/11, with the hope that the reader will remain open-minded and take the time to consider the content provided herein.

Please note that what I write here is far from comprehensive. I make no attempt to cover every subject matter or conspiracy theory, nor do I desire to do so. I simply desire to discuss what I see are some of the important issues. I encourage the reader to follow the links I provide in an effort to better investigate an issue discussed here only in brevity.


The best place to start in addressing the problem of 9/11 is the government’s official report: the 9/11 Commission Report.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article on 9/11 this year, wherein he said the following concerning the report:

Polls show that 36 percent of Americans and more than 50 percent of New Yorkers lack confidence in the 9-11 commission report. Many 9-11 families who lost relatives in the attacks are unsatisfied with the official story.

Why are the U.S. media untroubled that there has been no independent investigation of 9-11?

Why are the media unconcerned that the rules governing preservation of forensic evidence were not followed by federal authorities?

Why do the media brand skeptics of the official line “conspiracy theorists” and “kooks”?

Some may think that the 9-11 commission report was an independent investigation, and others will protest that we have the National Institute of Standards and Technology analysis, which explains the collapse of the Twin Towers as a result of airliner impact and fire.

The 9-11 commission was a political commission run by Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the head of which is a member of President Bush’s Cabinet.

Zelikow was a member of President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a neoconservative stronghold. In February 2005, Zelikow was appointed counselor of the U.S. Department of State. Obviously, there was zero possibility that the 9-11 commission would hold any part of the Bush administration accountable for the numerous failures of U.S. government agencies on Sept. 11, much less would the commission investigate for any complicity.

Before accepting the validity of the government’s report, we must ask some basic questions before accepting it as truth:

  • How did the commission come about?
  • Who were its members? What credentials do they have?
  • Were there any potential conflicts of interest?
  • Can we fully believe a report where the government investigates itself?
  • What was the commission’s objective when created? Was that objective fully met?
  • Since its publication, has the report been criticized, debunked, or opposed by anybody with qualifications to do so? What contradictory evidence has been offered?

Again, the list of questions can go on. But as Roberts points out, the commission (as well as NIST) was a political body with indirect executive oversight. How can we expect a forthright and thorough investigation when the government is investigating itself? Would it not be better to have such an inquiry be independent, such as when one entity is audited by an external one to prevent corruption, censorship, and fraud?

As Latter-day Saints, we understand the need to scrutinize material before accepting it as truth. Were we to receive new scripture, we would ask some basic questions:

  • Where did this scripture come from?
  • Who was involved in its translation/publishing?
  • What events surrounded its receipt?
  • What are the qualifications of the individual presenting said scripture to the Church membership?

Such basic questions allow us to determine if we should accept proposed material as truth. These questions, while specific to religious scripture, can and should be applied to secular scholarship at large. We should be initially wary to trust others, always realizing that the elect can be deceived.

Therefore, before accepting the Commission’s statements as fact and truth, it is incumbent upon us to learn who was involved, what their qualifications were, if there were any problems or controversies with their appointment to the Commission, and what, if any, hidden agenda or ulterior motive they might have.

Granted, some such questions are difficult to research conclusively; they are, however, crucial before accepting their findings as truth.

The Commission’s report has been examined and rebuffed by some individuals, chief among them Dr. David Ray Griffin. Griffin has called the Commission’s report a “571 page lie” and has published his response to the report in a book titled 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

In this book, Dr. Griffin lists over 100 lies he claims to have found in the official report. These lies, both of commission and omission, demonstrate the numerous holes, discrepancies, and fallacies to be found in the report.

The predominant issue showing the report’s inaccuracy is that of WTC 7. A popular website discussing this issue describes WTC 7 as follows:

Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?

World Trade Center building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” And 5 1/2 years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

Now, lest the reader gloss over this issue carelessly, it merits reiteration: a steel skyscraper, not hit by an airplane, fell to the ground on the afternoon of 9/11. Widespread media silence regarding its collapse followed. And the one report, issued by our noble government, claiming to be a “full and complete account” of the day’s events refused to discuss it whatsoever.

Do you still think that the Commission’s report is accurate and thorough?

The questions regarding the collapse of the twin towers, as well as building 7, are numerous and merit a truthful response. There are many questions awaiting official reply, yet our government either does not answer them (omission) or provides weak and incorrect answers (commission) to satisfy those who are inquiring.

Some of those persons asking questions are family members of people who died in the attacks. In 2002, the Family Steering Committee was formed to demand an investigation and receive answers to some questions regarding the events of 9/11. Following the Commission’s report, the FSC rated their questions based on responses received, ultimately giving the official report a failing grade. Notice how many of the ratings fall into Box 3, identified as a “question [that] has been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report”.

Do you still think that the Commission’s report is accurate and thorough?

Many of the questions are quite puzzling, their true answers perhaps contradictory to the government’s stated story. Consider:

Numerous other questions abound. They continue to pour in, just as the number of skeptics, doubters, and concerned citizens increase. Notable among the masses are:

  • 110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
  • 210+ Engineers and Architects
  • 50+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
  • 150+ Professors
  • 190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
  • 100+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

The comments and views of these persons, making their voices heard and demanding their questions be answered, merit perusal and pondering.

In Roberts’ article, he describes a few more individuals who have questioned the government’s report:

Some of NIST‘s own scientists are questioning its reports. Dr. James Quintiere, former chief of the fire science division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, recently said that “the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable” and called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the WTC towers.

Quintiere has called attention to many problems with NIST’s investigation and reports: the absence of a timeline, failure to explain the collapse of WTC 7, the spoliation of the evidence of a fire scene, reliance on questionable computer models, the absence of any evidence for the existence of temperatures NIST predicts as necessary for failure of the steel and a Commerce Department legal structure that instead of trying to find the facts “did the opposite and blocked everything.”

On Aug. 27, 2007, a prominent member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science, Dr. Lynn Margulis, dismissed the official account of 9-11 as a “fraud” and called for a new, thorough and impartial investigation.

On Sept. 5, 2007, U.S. Navy Top Gun fighter pilot and veteran airline pilot Ralph Kolstad said that the flight maneuvers attributed to the 9-11 hijackers are beyond his flight skills. “Something stinks to high heaven,” declared Kolstad.

When faced with disturbing events, the Romans asked a question, “Cui bono?” Who benefits? This question was conspicuously absent from the official investigation.

Indeed, “cui bono?” This is the question to ultimately determine who did what on 9/11, and why. Again, more questions come to mind:

  • Who stood to benefit from 9/11?
  • Did anybody immediately benefit, financially or otherwise, from the day’s events?
  • What has happened concerning our government, legislation, and civil liberties since that day?
  • Has that day been used as a pretext by any body of persons in pursuing an agenda? (answer)
  • In the past six years, are we better or worse off as a free society?

As Roberts noted, the report was altogether silent on this issue. That does not mean, however, that politicians aspiring for an office have not opined on this issue. The argument offered by most is that some Arabs with box-cutters did it because they hate us.

Why, pray tell, do they hate us?

“Because we are a free and Christian nation”.

And so it is alleged by those in control of our government that we were attacked by an external force who despises our liberty and religion.

This continuously propagated fallacy is what magicians call sleight of hand. By offering this logically empty argument, the electorate at large is kept ignorant of the real reason we were attacked. That reason, discussed by only a minority of politicians, is crucial if one desires to understand who brought about 9/11, and why.

It is up to the reader to ask questions, turn off the mainstream news, investigate, and pray to understand things as they really are.

As one who previously accepted whatever the government said as truth, I know full well how difficult it is for some to pursue legitimate truth. I understand the mentality of refusing to question the official line. I know how especially difficult it is for some Latter-day Saints who have been raised and ingrained with a desire to stay far away from any “taboo” material, that which is critical of what they perceive to be correct, just as they would stay away from anti-Mormon material.

But truth involves asking questions—sometimes hard, challenging ones. As Goethe once said:

It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter liest in the depth, where few are willing to search for it. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, via Quoty)

As time progresses, and as the so-called “9/11 truth movement” gains support, the conspiracy theory becomes not the accusation that the government was either complicit in, knowledgeable of, or totally unprepared for the 9/11 attacks, but instead becomes what is contained in the official report offered by the government as being factually sound and truthful.

98 Responses to “Some Questions on 9/11”

  1. Brian D.
    September 16, 2007 at 10:39 pm #

    Connor,

    With all due respect, your post requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

  2. Connor
    September 16, 2007 at 10:48 pm #

    Suspension of disbelief? I believe that to be required when one reads the official report.

    Or how about the watered down version: a pack of cave-dwellers, armed with box cutters, overpowered and commandeered several airplanes, successfully navigating and maneuvering them into steel buildings which had never before collapsed due to fire, yet as a result of the plane’s impact (on buildings designed to withstand such an attack) did indeed collapse from fire, all at the command and oversight of a distant radical who hates our freedoms and religion?

    ::: gulp :::

  3. Brandon
    September 16, 2007 at 10:55 pm #

    Welcome back!!!
    It was fun to see you. I hope you two are happy together.
    As far as your post, you did a good job of putting together a good starter discussion on this topic. I have found it rather difficult to bring up this subject with other people. I find it hard to share because I have done so much reading and investigating on my own. I feel like others can’t possibly understand the depth of what I am saying unless they go get the background information themselves. I hope someone reads what you wrote and finds their eyes open to the unimaginable.

  4. Curtis
    September 16, 2007 at 11:48 pm #

    Anyone read “Debunking 9/11 debunking” yet? I was thinking of checking it out and am interested to see what you thought of the book first though. Where’s K.W. on this discussion?

  5. mike shepard
    September 17, 2007 at 1:58 am #

    28pages with reference to Saudi Arabia were never released by the 9/11 commision. Saudi is a supports terror and we support Saudi. Very strange indeed unless we look at the Bush family buisness relationship with Saudi Araba. I urge you all to read a new book out by an American Paramedic that worked for King Abdullah. It is called “Paramedic to the Prince” really gave me a new insight into what Saudi Arabia is all about. Hell they had slaves up until 1964. Women can not vote or drive or travel without a males permission. Read the book and open your eyes.

  6. Dan
    September 17, 2007 at 7:30 am #

    Connor,

    Why do an astounding 67% of Americans believe that the government had something to do with this day’s events?

    Yet again I gotta call you out on those “live votes” as they are unscientific and unreliable as a real measure of what “Americans believe.”

    Why do you obfuscate this way?

  7. Connor
    September 17, 2007 at 7:37 am #

    Dan,

    No obfuscation here. While the number is slightly lower, this scientific survey conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center shows a great number of Americans do believe in government complicity.

    I’m sure it’s no surprise to anybody that those who use the internet regularly are more likely to disbelieve mainstream media and hence question the government’s statements, thus accounting for the greater percentage of people reported in the online poll.

  8. Dan
    September 17, 2007 at 7:38 am #

    You’re worse than my sister, Connor. She firmly believes a missile hit the Pentagon and that the US government shot down the plane that was supposed to hit the Pentagon.

    Think of it this way, Connor. Has the Bush administration shown you that they are expert enough to carry out such a highly precise conspiracy? Rather, on the contrary, doesn’t their bumbling of Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, and everything else, show that they really are quite inept and couldn’t really handle doing much of anything at all?

    Isn’t the more likely scenario that we were indeed attacked on 9/11 by Al-Qaeda in one of the most masterful attacks in the history of the world, and that the government took advantage of that attack (of which their bumbling ineptitude let slip through their fingers) to gain more power?

    What I’m saying is that the government did not have a hand in the attack. But they certainly used the attack to expand their power.

    Not everything is controlled by Skowsen’s Elite Billionaire Conspirators!

  9. Dan
    September 17, 2007 at 7:42 am #

    Connor,

    You quote the unscientific poll you offer from Newsweek at 67%. The poll you offer from SSRC has it at 36%. Those are not equal numbers.

    Now just so we’re clear on the rhetoric, you state:

    Why do an astounding 67% of Americans believe that the government had something to do with this day’s events?

    The SSRC poll states this:

    Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

    What the SSRC poll has at 70% is this:

    Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they’ve become angrier with the federal government than they used to be.

    Being angrier with the federal government does not equal believing they had a hand in the attacks. Sorry, Connor.

  10. Dan
    September 17, 2007 at 7:43 am #

    Connor,

    I’m sure it’s no surprise to anybody that those who use the internet regularly are more likely to disbelieve mainstream media and hence question the government’s statements, thus accounting for the greater percentage of people reported in the online poll.

    It is still an unscientific poll, and thusly should never be used to accurately gauge the sentiments of the public at large. You really need to take PoliSci 200 at BYU, dude.

  11. Dan
    September 17, 2007 at 7:46 am #

    oops, it is now apparently PoliSci 300

    Politial Science at BYU on page 5.

    POLSC 300 Political Inquiry (3:3:0)
    Fulfills GE Reading & Writing requirement.
    Systematic treatment of methodology in political science, including
    theory and techniques of research design.
    (Fall, Winter, Summer)

  12. Ken
    September 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm #

    Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

  13. Curtis
    September 17, 2007 at 3:42 pm #

    Dan,
    Before jumping all over Connor, why don’t you answer the questions he’s asking? I think they are perfectly legitimate questions and if as the investigation progresses, the facts point to a government conspiracy to a false-flag event in 9/11, so be it. Do you have proof that the attacks happened just as we are led to believe by the 9/11 report?

    I confess that I usually don’t subscribe to the more wacky sounding theories that come up to explain such things as 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination etc. Real life and government criminality is radical enough to get me pegged as a conspiracy theorist for speaking of things that are richly well documented and accepted as factual… like the CIA overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.

    Unconfirmed theories are the ones I usually stay away from. However, there are just too many holes in this story and I think that the US public deserves some answers. It may not turn out that the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11, but an investigation is definately warranted IMHO.

  14. Curtis
    September 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm #

    Connor,
    Dan did have a legitimate point about the 67% vs. 36% thing though. The term “slightly lower” is misleading there. A display of humility in the form of an apology wouldn’t lower your stature in my eyes and will be good practice for married life.

  15. rmwarnick
    September 17, 2007 at 3:50 pm #

    The poll you cite is not a scientific poll. Last month Zogby found that 4.6% believe in the MIHOP theory. With a margin of error of 3.1%, it could be 1.5% for all we know.

  16. Connor
    September 17, 2007 at 3:56 pm #

    Curtis,

    You’re right. My wording was misleading, in that one third is much less than two thirds. Dan, I concede the point to your argument.

    rmwarnick,

    Like the poll posted above, the survey you cite has about 30% of people saying that the government was somehow involved (either that they let it happen, or caused it to happen). Either way, both show a great amount of people disbelieving the government’s official story.

  17. Dan
    September 17, 2007 at 10:19 pm #

    Curtis,

    Not every non-answer has a conspiracy behind it. Did aliens really land in Roswell New Mexico in 1947? Is there really an Area 54 filled with dead aliens we’ve been dissecting for the past sixty years? The unanswerable does not equate to the spectacular or the extraordinary. Sometimes the answer really is that the flash of light you see in the sky is not a UFO, but rather swamp gas from a weather balloon that was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. ;)

    In all seriousness though Occam’s Razor does the trick here too. I can’t convince my sister that indeed it was a plane that crashed in the Pentagon. She will probably go to her grave thinking that the Pentagon fired a missile at itself, in a self-inflicted wound meant to build solidarity with the shocked public, destroyed an innocent plane somewhere over the Atlantic (even though we lost contact with the plane somewhere over Maryland, and no evidence is shown of any wreckage on land), so that people would assume it was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon instead of what really supposedly happened, that the Pentagon fired on itself. Puhlease!

    In regards to the World Trade Center bombings, let’s just be clear about things, and not ask questions we are not ready to answer. We know that Al-Qaeda had attempted to destroy the WTC in 1993. They thought that if they bomb the ground, the building would fall down. That bomb failed. They had a fixation on the WTC. It is an invitable target. Two Towers standing strong as symbols of Western capitalism at its peak. Bin Laden is a pretty stubborn guy, who sticks to his original plans. He wanted those two towers brought down.

    I don’t think he knew that jets would actually bring the towers down, (in fact he said in one tape released that he was really surprised that they did indeed go down), but he knew that using jets would change a whole bunch of things, and do major damage to two of our finest relics of our capitalist world.

    Those two towers did indeed go down because of those jets, and not by any bombs set off by the government. That discredited BYU professor is wrong, and so are all the conspiracy theorists who believe him. We don’t need to get into the actual physics and chemistry of it all. We can see it perfectly well on the tapes. Launching a large plane filled with tons of hot burning jet fuel into a building at several hundred miles an hour will fatally damage the structure of the building, enough to bring down the weight of the top section onto the rest of the building.

    It doesn’t matter which building went down first. The second tower hit, the first to fall, well, the airplane must have hit the right beams on the way in. There are so many variables that you just cannot account for.

    Why did Building Seven go down? Who knows. Personally I really don’t care. What would be the reasoning behind the government’s dastardly plot to blow it up? What, did they think the two main towers brought down in a horrific attack was not enough shock for our country? You guys even say that no one paid attention to that building going down. So what. Who cares if the CIA had the most secret files there. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change anything.

    There just isn’t enough evidence to point conclusively to a governmental plot, while the counter-evidence is quite strong that indeed it was Al-Qaeda and they caught us with our pants down.

  18. Connor
    September 17, 2007 at 11:05 pm #

    Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 & 93), does not believe the government’s official 9/11 conspiracy theory either. Watch his comments on why he thinks the government’s account is phooey.

  19. Dan
    September 18, 2007 at 4:29 am #

    What would his perspective add, Connor?

  20. Dan
    September 18, 2007 at 7:44 am #

    alrighty, I did just a little googling on Building 7 and I found this which pretty thoroughly debunks any conspiracy theory that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives from within. I doubt it will convince any of y’all, but there it is. The evidence you all offer is speculative at best, while this goes right to the real evidence.

  21. Dan
    September 18, 2007 at 10:48 am #

    This will be my final point before anyone else comments. Read this study which delves into the physics of the collapsing of the two towers.

    This is what makes sense if you know anything about gravity, energy and force.

    The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4X larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account. This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story. It was also observed that this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous. The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have
    been much longer (say twice as long or more) than the duration
    of a free fall from the tower top.
    Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that
    the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, due to gravity alone.
    However, a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics
    beyond the initial trigger, with the WTC as a paradigm, could
    nevertheless be very useful for other purposes, especially for
    learning from demolitions. It could also help to clear up misunderstanding (and thus to dispel the myth of planted explosives). Its formulation is the main objective of what follows.

    Gravity is a killer, man.

  22. tree
    September 18, 2007 at 7:55 pm #

    after i watched loose change i was a little bit of a troofer, i am ashamed i ever was. i releazed somthing looking into 9/11 conspiracies. CT’s use Questions that dont make sense to them about he day, which can be answered if u go to 9/11 debunking.com as sufficient evidence of a conspiracy. debunkers use facts about the day as evidence. this is real evidence. o theres a tiny little bit evidence here of controlled demo, or maybe a little evidence here 77 didnt hit the pentagon, which if u look at the facts its obvious 77 hit the pentagon, or you could choose to look at CT questions, which isnt real evidence. in the end there is no solid evidence connecting the gov. to planning 9/11. but there is evidence arabs did it, tons of it. this is the truth.

  23. Jay
    September 18, 2007 at 9:58 pm #

    Anyone can google and build a case for their argument and there are well-respected experts on both sides of this issue, so to say that something you googled debunks other theories is nothing more than an expression of your personal opinion on the subject.

    While I don’t claim to be an expert, I do have a master’s degree in civil engineering from BYU and I think I have pretty reasonable and above-average understanding of the mechanics of structural failure.

    I’ve done a lot of research on the subject of WTC 7 and I personally feel that the evidence supporting a controlled demolition far outweighs the other. You are free to chose who to believe whatever you want to, but I feel it’s rather pointless to tell us what you googled. Hopefully, we’re all intelligent enough to research the Net and to come to our respective conclusions. I know that I have mine.

    Jay

  24. Dan
    September 19, 2007 at 7:11 am #

    Jay,

    You can personally believe what you want. I really wouldn’t care. But if you come out and try to muddy the waters with all sorts of questions that are not designed to really seek the truth, but to instill doubt in what really happened, then I’m going to pounce on that.

    As far as building seven is concerned, out of curiosity, seeing that you got a civil engineering degree from BYU, can you answer me this question.

    If you were to do a controlled demolition of a building like that which was on fire, and which had structural damage from the debris of the North Tower, why would the Penthouse at the top be the first thing that fell? Look at the videos that I linked to. You’ll see in the top left corner of the building, the roof section comes down. Moments later the rest of the roof section comes down, followed by a quick fall of the entire building. If you are doing a controlled demolition, why would that first piece fall? I’m interested in your knowledge of the science of civil engineering.

  25. Jay
    September 19, 2007 at 5:56 pm #

    I’m not a demolitions expert and I suspect that you are not, either. I do forensic engineering, but not demolitions, sorry. For you and I to argue forensics of demolitions would be silly. I’ve watched many videos including the one you mentioned and the funny thing is that the point you make about the penthouse appears to favor a controlled demolition theory as many forensic engineers have pointed out. We line up our respective experts from our googling on the Net, to what end? You seem convinced that it wasn’t a controlled demolition and I am convinced otherwise. For every googled argument you post, I could post one in defense. For every googled argument I post, you could post a googled rebuttal. Our engagement here would do no more to further or solve the debate than is currently going on between the real experts. For all you or I know, some of these alleged experts have been paid off. Nobody can deny that it doesn’t happen in real life (or as prophesied in the Book of Mormon). So the point of this discussion is what? If you’re trying to win an argument, it’s just not going to happen. If you’re trying to convince me, you’re wasting your time because I don’t think you’ve written any books or comprehensive studies on the topic, so I don’t hold your opinion in any higher regard than I do my son’s 8th grade English teacher. It’s just how it is . . .

    As I said before, I think I have a basic understanding of structures, having had a lot of education and experience in the industry, but not with respect to demolitions. It is only my opinion, but it’s not an opinion blinded by conspiracy hype. I firmly believe that all of the evidence, when lined up, weighs heavily in favor of a controlled demolition. That’s all I really have to say on the topic.

    I don’t know you, so in the event that you do have some particular expertise in this type of forensic engineering, I apologize for making an improper assumption.

    Jay

  26. Kelly Winterton
    September 21, 2007 at 2:10 am #

    hi connor and guys, I’ve been away from my computer for 2 weeks on a European tour, so I will slowly catch back up. Suffering reverse jet-lag, it is 2 a.m. and I’m not tired as I type away, just a little worn from the last 26 hours from the flight from Frankfurt to SLC. I was in Europe during 9/11 last week. I would watch the hotel TV in German, and on 9/9 and 9/10 there were advertizements for a prime-time documentary on “what really happened on 9/11.” (RTL station in Germany) I couldn’t watch the program because of the tour’s scheduling of visiting castles and concentration camps etc. But, when I arrived at the home of my German friends, they had watched it and told me all about it. Of course most Germans, as well as others throughout Europe and the world have known about the false-flag nature of 9/11 since at least 2003. I asked my friends if the program was oriented to saying that 9/11 is just conspiracy theory, or if it really was sanctioned by our own government for their gain, or if it compared the events from many angles letting the viewer decide. They informed me that the TV program showed that it must have been an inside job, or at the very least stood down the military in allowing it to happen. Remember, this program happened on 9/11 during prime time last week.

    When considering the facts of 9/11, be sure that you consider these two points. 1) the theory of controlled demolition of the three towers will explain, and is in fact the best explanation, for all the unanswered questions about the strange occurances of that day. 2) the fact that molten metal persisted in the sub-basements of all three skyscrapers for more than 5 weeks after 9/11 cannot be explained away by anything other than controlled demolition.

    Of course the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job. The facts are there to support it. The people who try to find other explanations for all the unexplained oddities about that day will try to convince themselve otherwise, but there are also people who do the same thing with the gospel. But, the truth is out there to be found, and atheists will not find it. The truth of 9/11 is out there to be found, but doubters will not find it.

  27. Dan
    September 21, 2007 at 4:19 am #

    Kelly,

    Of course the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job.

    Did you ask God? Did he answer yes, indeed it was an inside job? If not, then you don’t actually know. You were not there. You do not have the “smoking gun” proof that it was. You are merely assuming. If only assuming, why state it as if it was obvious?

    The facts are there to support it.

    Actually no the facts are not there to support it. The facts are inconclusive, but in my view, lead predominantly towards the towers crashing down on their own.

    The people who try to find other explanations for all the unexplained oddities about that day will try to convince themselve otherwise, but there are also people who do the same thing with the gospel

    9/11 is not a religion.

    The truth of 9/11 is out there to be found, but doubters will not find it.

    And fundamentalists will never be convinced of the error of their ways.

  28. Carissa
    September 21, 2007 at 9:21 am #

    Dan #8:

    What I’m saying is that the government did not have a hand in the attack.

    Dan #17:

    Those two towers did indeed go down because of those jets, and not by any bombs set off by the government. That discredited BYU professor is wrong, and so are all the conspiracy theorists who believe him.

    Dan’s advice in #27:
    Did you ask God? Did he answer [no], that it indeed it was [not] an inside job? If not, then you don’t actually know. You were not there. You do not have the “smoking gun” proof that it [wasn’t]. You are merely assuming. If only assuming, why state it as if it was obvious?

    Goes both ways right?

  29. Kelly Winterton
    September 21, 2007 at 9:29 am #

    Did you ask God if a guy in a cave told some guys with boxcutters to make molten metal in the sub-basements of those 3 skyscrapers?

  30. Kelly Winterton
    September 21, 2007 at 10:22 am #

    The details of what actually happened on 9/11 are of course still not known to the general person. There really is no need to argue over the details. The fact that is indisputable is that the Government’s official version is NOT true, and also has not been proven.

  31. Dan
    September 21, 2007 at 2:32 pm #

    But Kelly, I don’t worship the 9/11 conspiracies like you do. You state that they are just as true as your religion is true. Well if that’s the case, then asking if God confirmed to you is quite valid. I don’t look at it that way. The evidence points well enough to the towers going down on their own quite well.

    This is something that just mystifies me of Americans these days. And maybe I always had a high standard for educated Americans. But some things just make common sense.

    The guy I quoted earlier, in his research on the collapse of the two towers said this:

    The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4X larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account.

    That makes sense. He continues:

    This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story. It was also observed that this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous. The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top.

    This makes sense.

    Secret demolitions and explosives hidden in the building to be detonated at the right moment to mimic the building collapsing does not make sense. It shouldn’t take much to understand that some things just happen the way we see them.

    While our government tends to be quite secretive, their overall actions cannot make one conclude that they are efficient at what they do. Their bumbling of this and that show that the government really isn’t all that brilliant. The government’s characteristics and modus operandi do not fit with the conspiratorial definition of a government so secretive and efficient that they can detonate and destroy a building so that it looks like it was indeed the plane that brought it down.

    Do you guys really think the government is that capable? Look at the rest of the things the government does. If indeed the government was that capable then we’d have many things done quite well and quite right.

    No, the theories you guys posit do not make sense. The buildings going down as described by the physics research makes sense.

  32. Kelly Winterton
    September 21, 2007 at 3:23 pm #

    Dan, you still don’t try to explain the molten metal……

    And I totally disagree with your unlogical thinking that a block of floors could fall at free-fall speed through dense building material at the same speed that block of floors would fall through thin air. This goes against the laws of physics. All three buildings had the top floor hitting ground level at the same approximate speed it would take if it were falling through thin air, leaving behind molten metal in the sub-basements.

    I really think you need to study some more of the theories on the net.

    I personally think that the theory of a guy in a cave and his buddies with boxcutters is the dumbest one. Besides, this theory hasn’t been proven correct yet either.

  33. Dan
    September 21, 2007 at 3:42 pm #

    Kelly,

    It isn’t illogical at all. Did you even look at the article?

    Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.

    Read particularly page 2 wherein he reviews the causes of the WTC collapse.

    1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed
    tube and about 13% of the total of 287 columns were severed,
    and many more were significantly deflected. This
    caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the
    load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity
    for some of them.

    2. Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped,
    many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed
    by annealing studies of steel debris NIST 2005 the
    structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength
    already at 300°C, and about 85% at 600°C NIST 2005 ;
    and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above
    450°C e.g., Cottrell 1964, p. 299 , especially in the columns
    overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right
    after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of
    800°C, turned out to be groundless, but Bažant and Zhou’s
    analysis did not depend on that .
    3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced
    viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The
    catenary action of the sagging trusses pulled many perimeter
    columns inward by about 1 m, NIST 2005 . The bowing of
    these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multistory
    out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral
    deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact, the differential
    thermal expansion, and overstress due to load redistribution
    also diminished buckling strength.
    4. The combination of seven effects— 1 Overstress of some
    columns due to initial load redistribution; 2 overheating
    due to loss of steel insulation; 3 drastic lowering of yield
    limit and creep threshold by heat; 4 lateral deflections of
    many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor
    trusses; 5 weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane
    stiffness of sagging floors; 6 multistory bowing of some
    columns for which the critical load is an order of magnitude
    less than it is for one-story buckling ; and 7 local plastic
    buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of
    columns Fig. 1 b . As a result, the upper part of the tower
    fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height,
    impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive
    collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper
    part exceeded by an order of magnitude the energy that
    could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing
    in the lower part of the tower.

    Did you read that section? That is what makes sense.

    This goes against the laws of physics.

    Kelly, I’m sorry to say but I do think you need to take a class in physics.

  34. Kelly Winterton
    September 21, 2007 at 3:48 pm #

    Sorry Dan, I agree with Steven E. Jones the physics teacher. He knows physics better than I.

  35. Dan
    September 21, 2007 at 3:58 pm #

    Well, Kelly, I’m sorry to say, but Steven E. Jones does not know his physics. You ought to look to someone else to apprentice with if you really want to know physics properly.

  36. Jay
    September 21, 2007 at 4:34 pm #

    Let’s see, he graduated magna cum laude from BYU (was the recipient of several scholarships), got a PhD from Vanderbilt, did post doctorate work at Cornell University and at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility. He was a senior engineer at Idaho National Laboratory, he’s been published by Scientific American, has received several awards for his scholarship in physics, was in charge of several research projects for the Department of Energy, worked in conjunction with scientists on several projects from TRIUMF, Oxford University, KEK and Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, built a high-precision neutron counter, has been highly regarded by his peers, world wide . . . but, hmmmmm, some guy named Dan who I would guess doesn’t even have a degree in physics claims that Steven E. Jones “does not know his physics.” I guess he sure fooled BYU into thinking that he was a physicist. I suppose he could have lied on his resume’.

    Interesting, to say the least . . .

    So, Dan, please show us your credentials that will convince us that you are able assess his knowledge of physics. Also, if he “doesn’t know his physics,” were all these agencies, laboratories and even BYU totally irresponsible in hiring him?

    I’m all ears (or in this case, eyes).

    Jay

  37. Dan
    September 21, 2007 at 7:08 pm #

    Jay,

    Let me rephrase. Steven E. Jones knows physics, but in the case of 9/11 he does not know his physics. He seems to have misplaced it somewhere. He lost it. He better search for it, because he’s not helping.

    so let’s get just briefly into Professor Jones’ assumptions.

    1. He assumes that the previous analysis of structure stability of a tower like the WTC skyscrapers surviving a Boeing jet flying at 600 miles an hour is accurate. He quotes the Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson White Paper who say this:

    The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

    How was it investigated? Did they fly a jet airliner into a building to test the stability of the building? Or did they merely use mathematics? How do you really judge how well a building survives such a collision without actually attempting such a collision?

    I walk by the new WTC 7 every day (I work in downtown Manhattan). I observe the marvel of this new, gorgeous structure. It is supposed to be even safer than any previously built building. But one thing I know from learning history is that you can never say for certain whether something will indeed happen as you hope. This is how we learn, by experience. The lack of experience we’ve had with large planes colliding with skyscrapers (I’m sure there are some other incidents, but I just can’t think of any off the top of my head right now) tells me we cannot say for certain just how damaging the impact of a plane really is on the structure of a building.

    In another example of his trusting previous analysis we get the following from City in the Sky (though this analysis should be called Pie in the Sky):

    The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

    Talk about pie in the sky! I get these quotes from this site. Frankly, I’m rather disappointed. I don’t see any physics yet. The whole page offers no physics. Show me the evidence Mr. Jones!

    So let’s go to Professor Jones’ article. It’s actually highly disappointing for an article he supposedly would like to be peer reviewed. So much of his start begins with a photo of what he calls molten steel being picked up by a Cat. But here’s the problem. He does not offer an evidence that the photo is actually accurate. He does not offer that the photo does indeed come from the WTC debris. Not only that but he does not even reference in his bibliography where or when or who actually took the photo. We are to assume it was by Frank Silecchia. This is very shoddy work, especially when so much of his thesis is based on this photo.

    Then on page 9 he offers another photo, again without any reference to who or where or what, except for his own words. Very shoddy work, Mr. Jones.

    Then on page 10 he offers another photograph of a corner of the building with a very bright burning section. It is definitely something unique. Unfortunately Professor Jones tries to tie a thermite reaction to this particular image based on…what exactly? He doesn’t offer any science. He merely guesses based on the image that it must be a thermite reaction. It couldn’t possibly be something else. We don’t know. Professor Jones offers other possible scenarios, but unfortunately he offers them from the perspective that that burn HAS TO BE a thermite reaction, so of course when he does his experiment with his students, he doesn’t get the results needed to disprove his own theory. Duh!

    Other explanations for the observations are sought, of course. For example, F. Greening
    has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this
    aluminum might fall on “rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions.” [Greening,
    2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and
    dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no “violent
    thermite” reactions seen.

    Duh!

    He then further tries to undermine any other possible theory by saying that hey, WTC 7 was not hit by any plane, so those thermite reactions must not have been caused by the planes crashing into the buildings. But, unfortunately, he did not provide any evidence that thermite reactions occurred in WTC 7. At least, he has no photographs, his bread and butter.

    Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate
    demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to
    numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged.

    A better question to ask is how many examples are there of large Boeing jets crashing into skyscrapers that demolish the buildings? We better suppose that until another such incident occurs, we cannot say conclusively one way or the other. Unfortunately for Professor Jones, Occam’s Razor states that the simpler answer is generally the most correct. In this particular case, what is the simpler answer? Planes indeed knocked these buildings down, or the government timed the destruction of these buildings at the same time as planes hit them, to ensure that the buildings would go down, because of course hitting buildings with airplanes is not shocking enough! The buildings must be destroyed too! Puhlease!

    In his second point, he assumes that the recording of 1000 degrees Celsius is accurate. He quotes Barnett who says:

    Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation
    in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The
    formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at
    which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this
    region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a
    “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
    How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the

    Note that Barnett merely “suggests” that the temperature “approached” 1000°C. Does Mr. Jones do anything to question whether this was accurate? I mean, if we’re really looking for the exact truth, EVERYTHING MUST BE QUESTIONED!

    In his third point about WTC 7, he does not even discuss why the one penthouse began crashing first, before the rest of the roof collapsed, and then the building. Interestingly the images he provided on his other blog only shows the RIGHT SIDE of the image of the collapse of WTC 7. He does NOT SHOW the LEFT SIDE where we see the penthouse falling about two seconds before the rest of the roof, and another second later when the rest of the building falls. Why does Mr. Jones ignore this very relevant issue? How can anyone consider his piece credible if he does not analyze EVERYTHING? If he is going to question the “official” record, then he better cover himself well. To this point, he has failed, miserably.

    His fourth point is silly. He says “No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires.”

    Well duh, Mr. Jones. But how many previous times has a large Boeing jet crashed into a building, fatally undermining the structure, allowing the fires to demolish the building? My how his rationale totally reminds me of the people of Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon who kept boasting that their city would never be destroyed. How little we learn!

    We skip down to his seventh point:

    Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous
    observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and
    others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in
    lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck
    the tower (Dwyer, 2005).

    This is not sound evidence worthy of a peer reviewed article. Sounds may be consistent with explosive demolitions, but that does not make these particular sounds actually explosive demolitions. When you are dealing with the collapse of two of the biggest and tallest buildings in the world, you are quite likely to hear many strange sounds. That is a far safer assumption to make about the sounds coming from the WTC towers than to suppose they are sounds of explosive demolitions.

    Now read this from his eighth point:

    Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding
    from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on
    the order in which explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on higher
    floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have early explosions near the region
    where the plane entered the tower. Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in
    an independent investigation using all available data.

    “Clearly possible?” “May have been placed?” “Exploded via radio signals?” Dude! How many assumptions does he make here? Too many to count!

    Now, in point 9 we get to some laws of physics. He states:

    Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum –
    one of the foundational Laws of Physics?

    Aha! laws of physics! Let’s review again what a scholar wrote about what happened as the top floors came down. I quoted him earlier:

    The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4X larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account. This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story. It was also observed that this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous. The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have
    been much longer (say twice as long or more) than the duration
    of a free fall from the tower top.
    Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that
    the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, due to gravity alone.

    However, a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics
    beyond the initial trigger, with the WTC as a paradigm, could
    nevertheless be very useful for other purposes, especially for
    learning from demolitions. It could also help to clear up misunderstanding (and thus to dispel the myth of planted explosives). Its formulation is the main objective of what follows.

    Gravity is a killer.

    The rest of his paper is not important, because to this point all of his argument is based on circumstantial evidence, and not on any hard evidence. He supposes, rather, based on the fact that we have not really had much of an opportunity to observe just such an incident ever before. How does this lead him to suppose that someone blew these towers up. Furthermore, and this is the key question: WHY would someone want to blow these towers up? Why would the government wish to do that? Would not using planes as missiles be shocking enough to get a populace behind you? Why should the buildings be demolished? Where is the evidence of the reasoning behind this theory? There is none. Just X-Files-hyped “don’t trust the government.”

    This is not worthy of a scholarly peer reviewed journal.

  38. Dan
    September 21, 2007 at 8:04 pm #

    Steven E. Jones’ utter failure is that he offered a theory of his own with little actual evidence, merely circumstantial evidence. If his paper and research merely questioned the “official” version, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that. We all want the most sound theory possible to explain how the events of 9/11 occurred. That said, if you offer up a theory it 1) better make sense, and 2) you better have more than just circumstantial evidence.

    I mean, heck, why isn’t it aliens that destroyed the WTC? Why blame the government? You don’t have evidence of actual government involvement, so why can’t it actually be aliens?

  39. Jay
    September 21, 2007 at 10:05 pm #

    And likewise, you have ZERO evidence that it was done by terrorists–just a lot of assumptions. I guess we’ll all know when we get to the other side, huh?

    I look forward to the day.

    :O)

    Jay

  40. Kelly Winterton
    September 21, 2007 at 11:19 pm #

    Remember, a plane never hit building #7 and there was molten metal in the sub-basement for weeks after. Sneaky terrorists with box cutters must have put that molten metal there.

  41. Dan
    September 22, 2007 at 6:30 am #

    Jay,

    To this point I have not said definitively that it was done by “terrorists.” All I have said is that two planes hit the two towers and brought them both down (and later, through weakening by debris and fires WTC 7). This is what I said in comment #8

    Isn’t the more likely scenario that we were indeed attacked on 9/11 by Al-Qaeda in one of the most masterful attacks in the history of the world, and that the government took advantage of that attack (of which their bumbling ineptitude let slip through their fingers) to gain more power?

    In comment #17, I said this:

    There just isn’t enough evidence to point conclusively to a governmental plot, while the counter-evidence is quite strong that indeed it was Al-Qaeda and they caught us with our pants down.

    I don’t say anything definitively, except that two planes hit those two towers and brought them down.

    Kelly,

    You know, I just reviewed again Mr. Jones’ article and for the life of me, I cannot see him providing any evidence of molten metal at the WTC 7 site. He shows evidence from the North Tower (which is correct), but he only seems to add in the WTC 7 site without any actual evidence. I wonder why. This is his seminal piece on his thesis. If I’m going to argue that there was molten metal in the debris of a building not hit by jets, I better dang well have some evidence to back it up.

  42. Jay
    September 22, 2007 at 7:50 am #

    “I don’t say anything definitively, except that two planes hit those two towers and brought them down.”

    Okay, then I’ll restate why I said. You have ZERO evidence that the two planes that hit the towers is what brought them down. It’s all a bunch of assumptions–and poor ones at best.

    Jay

  43. Dan
    September 22, 2007 at 9:17 am #

    Jay,

    I don’t have assumptions. I showed science. Did you even read the article I quoted or did you dismiss it because it didn’t fit your preconceived notions about how the government made sure those towers crumbled to the ground?

    Read it again, Bazant and Verdure. Refute their science. Bring it on dude.

  44. Jay
    September 22, 2007 at 12:31 pm #

    Yes, I’ve read that article and about two dozen articles from professors and engineers who have destroyed and spread Bazant’s silly tripe all over the Net like roadkill. Do you need me to post you some links or are you able to Google it? Try putting in “controlled demolition” and “Bazant” in a Google search and that should keep you busy for a few hours.

    Science is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. Unfortunately, the bottom line with most people who are fooled like you isn’t science–it’s emotions.

    Jay

  45. Dan
    September 22, 2007 at 2:49 pm #

    Me? Ruled by emotions? I’m not the one who believes in some vast government conspiracy based on circumstantial evidence!

    It is one thing to say, “look, the evidence is not clear, and we should look at all possibilities.”

    It is wholly another thing to say, “look, the evidence is not clear, it must therefore be a government plot!”

    Do you see the difference?

  46. Kelly Winterton
    September 22, 2007 at 4:28 pm #

    FYI, use the link below to study about molten metal under all 3 skyscrapers:

    http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

    Here is the text, but many links to the quotes and sources are available by going to the website:

    Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
    Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

    New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”

    A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a “foundry” or like “lava”.

    A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano.

    An employee of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed “Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”

    The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”

    According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.”

    An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures” (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

    A rescue worker “crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam”

    A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero “descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.”

    A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center’s original designer saw “streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” (pages 31-32)

    An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, “They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event.”

    An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, “its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel.”

    A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”

    The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

    According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”

    A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said “in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire–which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December.”

    A fireman stated that there were “oven” like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

    Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, “There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red” and “the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.” (pay-per-view)

    A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said “for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal – everything from molten steel beams to human remains….”

    New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.”

    As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”

    Indeed, the trade center fire was “the longest-burning structural fire in history”, even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and “firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on” ground zero.”

    Indeed, “You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.”

    See also witness statements at the beginning of this video.

    For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper. Also see this essay showing that the post-collapse temperatures under Building 7 were very similar to those under Buildings 1 and 2, even though Buildings 1 and 2 were much higher.

  47. Dan
    September 22, 2007 at 6:06 pm #

    Kelly,

    That’s very interesting. The one article that is cited by the blog you cite is from the New York Times from November 29, 2001, here in full, thanks to NY Times opening up.

    I read over the article and, well, for the life of me, I cannot find any evidence of a controlled demolition. In fact, the theories posited all deal with these massive gas tanks that were placed all over the building in WTC 7. Highly flammable gas, btw.

    As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.

    One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building’s southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.

    Now, in reading Mr. Jones’ theory, he does nothing to dispel this theory at all. Mr. Jones begins with thermite reaction as the only possible theory and then dismisses others because no other theory achieves the results he assumes. Well, duh.

  48. Jay
    September 22, 2007 at 9:51 pm #

    Dan,

    No, you’re not the one who believes in some vast government conspiracy based on circumstantial evidence. You’re the one who believes in the official conspiracy theory based upon circumstantial evidence.

    Choose your conspiracy.

    Jay

  49. Kelly Winterton
    September 22, 2007 at 11:46 pm #

    Yeah, like I’m supposed to believe that burning diesel fuel can create temperatures high enough to melt steel that persists for weeks.

    Perhaps the burning diesel fuel in an engine that has a radiator failure will create a melted engine block of molten steel.

    Burning diesel fuel is physically impossible to get hot enough to melt steel.

  50. Dan
    September 23, 2007 at 4:41 am #

    Jay,

    I don’t believe in any conspiracy. I believe what I saw with my own eyes. The science as described by Bazant and Verdure just simply makes sense to me. I can’t describe it any better than that. It just makes sense that the two planes fatally ruptured the stability of the columns, started a hot fire that finally forced at least one floor to collapse. The force and energy of the floor collapsing from above on the floor below was several times stronger than the lower floor’s ability to hold such energy and force that it also collapsed with little resistance. That is science I understand. It isn’t a mystery.

    The two towers collapsed from a top-down collapse, not, as usual with demolitions, with the whole tower collapsing at once. Look at the video closely. Unless that vast government conspiracy exploded those explosives at just the right time going down the tower so that it looked like a top-down demolition, well, Occam’s Razor strikes again.

    Now in regards to WTC 7, well, we’ll never have an authoritative answer as to why it collapsed. We have not had many opportunities in the past to study just what effects such an action has on surrounding buildings. Some buildings survive, others don’t. We must take many things into consideration, most important being that the tallest towers were struck. The damage they do to the buildings close by may end up fatally damaging them.

    I have no problem questioning any theory as to why WTC 7 fell. In fact, I have not set myself on one theory or another. But one thing I will dismiss almost immediately, is that our government is so good at hiding the destruction of these buildings, but yet is so terribly inept at everything else it does.

    Now that just don’t make no sense!

  51. Connor
    September 25, 2007 at 9:28 pm #

    OpEdNews.com has an article titled “Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report” showing the skepticism of well qualified individuals regarding the government’s official report.

  52. Jay
    September 25, 2007 at 10:03 pm #

    You say you don’t believe in any conspiracy theory, but then you say that it makes sense that two planes fatally ruptured the stability of the columns, started a hot fire that finally forced at least one floor to collapse, which is no more than a part of the official conspiracy theory of our government.

    I wouldn’t say that the government did such a good job of covering up what was done on 9/11 as you suggest. It’s been a pretty sloppy coverup in my opinion. That’s the very reason there are so many of us who simply don’t buy it. In my mind, there is more than enough evidence to show incredible ineptitude from our government during every part of this entire debacle.

    Jay

  53. Dan
    September 26, 2007 at 3:51 am #

    Jay,

    I don’t base my belief on what the government says, but what I saw with my own eyes. I saw two planes hit the towers, I saw them destroy the inside of several floors, cause strong fires. I saw the towers going down. I don’t base my belief on anything more than that. No conspiracy theory.

  54. Kelly Winterton
    September 26, 2007 at 8:14 am #

    Saw two planes hit two buildings, and three towers went down, leading to molten metal in the sub-basements of all three buildings.

  55. Dan
    September 26, 2007 at 10:55 am #

    Actually more than three towers went down, Kelly.

  56. Kelly Winterton
    September 26, 2007 at 11:54 am #

    Dan, you’re correct. But only those three went down at near free-fall speed. These three buildings went down completely into very small, compact piles, with the concrete being pulverized. (hence the pyroclastic dust that drifted so quickly down the streets) The metal skeletons were conveniently broken up into manageably sized pieces for speedy clean-up. There was molten metal in the basements. The other buildings that went down were not skyscrapers, and did not have the concrete pulverized, and did not fall down completely, and did not have molten metal in the basements.

  57. Kelly Winterton
    September 26, 2007 at 2:25 pm #

    and those other buildings that “went down” were also part of the WTC complex, all owned by Larry Silverstein who on camera admitted that he gave the order to the fire department to pull, and then he stood back and watched the building come down. No other buildings “came down,” but the Deutsche Bank building was damaged to the point that it had to be abandoned and dismantled floor by floor because of the asbestos content in that building. Incidentally, on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, workers who later were starting the dismantling process found hundreds of human bone fragments about an eighth of an inch in size. Any guesses how the human bone fragments even got fragmented in the first place, let alone blown out and deposited on the roof of the bank?

  58. Kelly Winterton
    September 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm #

    The human bones were most likely blown into pieces along with all that pulverized concrete that drifted down the streets.

  59. Dan
    September 26, 2007 at 2:48 pm #

    Any guesses how the human bone fragments even got fragmented in the first place, let alone blown out and deposited on the roof of the bank?

    Any old number of reasons, actually, none definitively pointing one way or another.

    Really, though, after all you’ve seen of our government, why do you give them the credit you do? Do you really think they are that efficient? Look at everything they’ve done, the debacle in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in, well the whole world, Katrina, etc. Are you really telling me you believe they are so efficient as to fool most Americans and most people around the world, take those towers down themselves and so efficiently hide all conclusive evidence that all we are left with is circumstantial evidence that doesn’t clearly point one way or another, but is rather left to how much preponderance we each have towards conspiracy theories?

    You’ve got to be kidding me.

  60. Sam Hennis
    September 29, 2007 at 10:07 am #

    Dan,

    “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
    Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Maybe you’ll give ol’ Franklin some credit since he was a Democrat eh? :)

  61. Steve Snelgrove
    October 1, 2007 at 2:01 am #

    I like the fact that at least some of you have read the NIST report as this is a very interesting document. Some people make fun of the 9-11 truthers because they haven’t studied this and imply that they are not smart enough to understand science.

    This document on the surface claims to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers. However, a careful reading of this paper shows a considerable amount of internal conflict in this report. At the surface level, it states the official conclusion that heat weakened the steel and that this lead to the collapse. But scattered through the paper are numerous statements that directly contradict this conclusion.

    For example, in the report it clearly makes the point that the building was strong, perhaps overengineered. It states that the designers did not have the finite element computer tools that we have today which would lead one to assume that they would err on the side of caution in their design. Then once they design, they tried it out in a wind tunnel and found that although the building was mechanically sound, it would move enough to be disconcerting to the occupants so they increased the strength of the building some more. It is noted that the designers anticipated a 707 airplane impact in their design as an aircraft had previously struck the Empire State building. Then the report goes on the note that the steel and bolts that ended up in the towers tended to exceed the specified requirements.

    So the building was strong. The report mentions that NIST did an study of the amount of swaying induced into WTC2 when the second plane hit and found that this was considerably less than the 100 mph wind loading. Both buildings stayed up after being hit and as the report states, would have continued to stand except for heat weakening the steel.

    But then instead of giving evidence of how terribly hot things were, the report states that paint studies of the recovered steel show that as far as can be seen, the steel temperature did not exceed 250C, pizza cooking temperature. Their computer simulation likewise shows similar temeratures in the core column area.

    In addition, they built a section of floor and then overloaded it in an oven that was heated to well over the observed temperatures. They ran the oven for some two hours and then just turned the oven off. The floor sections held up just fine with only some slight sagging of the floor pan under the concrete.

    Moreover, one of the pictures of the hole were one of the planes entered shows two women looking out and very much alive prior to the collapse. One women is lying down and looking towards the ground. The other is standing and looking towards the camera while holding onto the jagged steel of the opening. This tends to contradict the claim of extremely high temperatures on the impact floors at least in this case.

    So at one level the reports makes the government case and yet within the report, there is no science supporting this conclusion. When pressed on the actual mechanism of the collapse, NIST retreats and states that they only investigated events leading to the collapse. That since the buildings were observed to have collapsed and that it must have been a structural failure and nothing else, they therefore did not have to examine or explain the collapse itself.

    It passes understanding that this report could be used to ridicule someone asking for a better account of the events of 9-11.

    Finally, take a hard look at the talks made by Dr. Sunder, an official and spokesman for this division of NIST. He has stated on at least two occasions that he has a hard time understanding why WTC7 fell. In his talk before a conference of code officials, he states that the buildings were well built and that previous codes were adequate except that NIST has a few modest suggestions for building egress.

    So is there wackyness out there in the Internet on the subject of 9-11? Of course the answer is yes but one need only go to the official NIST site and read what is there to see that there are serious unanswered questions about the official account of the collapse.

    And this is just talking about the so-called scientific account of the mechanism of the collapses. The large amount of other troubling discrepencies in the 9-11 report has been well covered in Dr. Griffin’s book “Debunking 9-11 Debunking”. A person should disqualify themselves immediately from further comment on the subject until they have read this book.

    Now on a blog like this, I would suppose that it is reasonable that most have read the Book of Mormon and would tend to believe it. So if you believe it and you believe that these are the last days and that this book was written as advice to us, you must therefore accept the possibility of similar works of darkness in our time. And in fact, modern prophets have stated that the US Constitution will hang by a thread. So it would seem to me that a devout member of the LDS church is by definition a person who ought to accept the possibility of secret combinations, murder as a political tool and assignment of blame onto innocent parties. It’s in the Book of Mormon.

    So I would not be quick to dismiss and ridicule honest people seeking the truth on the events of 9-11. This is a serious matter. Our personal liberties have been reduced and wars started as a direct result of the events of 9-11. If this really is a Satan inspired attempt to subvert our government, you ought to expect his influence to be well hidden, that his followers will fight with each other as well as against the good people and that lies and disinformation will be everywhere hiding the truth and that those who get the closest to the truth will be mocked the most.

  62. Dan
    October 1, 2007 at 7:14 am #

    Sam,

    Maybe you’ll give ol’ Franklin some credit since he was a Democrat eh?

    Well, you’re assuming a few things here.

    1. That Roosevelt’s theory is always right

    2. That Roosevelt’s theory explains 9/11

    I would not make those assumptions. However, politics is not exclusively a domestic creature. Bin Laden assuredly attacked us for political reasons. But that doesn’t mean the Bush administration approved of those attacks. Sorry, but that’s just not the case.

  63. Dan
    October 1, 2007 at 7:24 am #

    Steve,

    I’m curious why you haven’t talked about the curious aspect of column strength. After all, the planes, as they entered the buildings must assuredly have struck a whole bunch of columns, significantly redistributing the weight of the floors above. Does such a redistribution of such a magnitude of weight not severely effect the soundness of such a structure?

    I read about the plane that hit the Empire State Building back in 1945, to see what possible difference there could be, why the Empire State Building did not collapse. The account doesn’t provide much information, except that the crash was not as spectacular, nor as fiery. The bomber flew at a much slower speed, seeing that it was foggy and he was closing in to go to the airport. He probably was going no faster than 150 miles per hour. The two jets crashing into the towers came in at 500-600 miles per hour. That extra force had a much more devastating impact on the buildings.

    Now, I realize, Steve, that your point about not trusting the “official” report is a good instinct to have. But you don’t seem to offer any real evidence that “secret combinations” within our government destroyed the buildings. You’re basically sowing doubt without evidence of another theory. Com’on, Steve. Show us your money. Put it on the table. Don’t hide behind the X-Files “Truth is Out There” crap.

  64. Steve Snelgrove
    October 1, 2007 at 11:52 am #

    Dan,

    Have you actually read the NIST report? You seem to quote from it so I will assume that you have. The report does make the claim exactly as you stated it. However, as I stated in my previous post, the report also seems to make the point that the buildings were overdesigned and capable of handling the load in spite of column damage.

    Since you are well read, you are no doubt aware of the observation that others have made regarding the removal of column from the load bearing calculations regardless of the amount of damage (simulated) to the column. See

    So yes, there is reason to question the official story.

    Now your last comments seem to be of a rather personal nature. Actually, I don’t watch much television and have never seen an episode of the X-Files and thus don’t fully understand the full implications of your mockery but mockery it does appear to be. Is this your intent? Because if it is, it says more about you and your spirit of contention. Your discourse begins to show signs of provocation at this point.

    Now if you would like to discuss the money, I would be happy to mention the paper “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001″ by Allen M. Poteshman. He seems to establish in a very quiet and through manner the fact that someone knew about the 9-11 attacks ahead of time. His paper can be found at .

    This now seems to be collaborated by the work of Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, professors at the University of Zurich. See .

    So some persons seem to have had prior knowledge of the attacks and appear to have profited in an amount of perhaps 15 million dollars. The 9-11 Commission Report states that it was not bin Laden or his associates and therefore by flawed reasoning, not of importance.

    I think that a lot more testimony should be taken on the subject, under oath, with detailed questions being asked. That’s not crap, that’s the way our system of government is supposed to work.

  65. Kelly Winterton
    October 1, 2007 at 12:06 pm #

    New “evidence” I have been reading lately states that it is impossible to fly 767s at 500 to 600 mph at sea level because of (I am not knowledgeable in this area) the density of the air in relation to the speed of the turbines in the engines. Supposedly if the engines were turning at the speed required to push the jets to 500 mph at sea level, the turbines would physically break apart. Boeing states that this is the very reason they can only attain cruising speed at altitudes of 30,000 to 35,000 feet.

    The “assumed” speed of 500 to 600 mph at sea level striking the buildings is apparently in great dispute. (google it)

  66. Kelly Winterton
    October 1, 2007 at 12:10 pm #

    Here is a possible link to get you going on the maximum speed of a 767 at sea level.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjgLwOT2zuc

  67. Dan
    October 1, 2007 at 12:30 pm #

    Steve,

    Have you actually read the NIST report? You seem to quote from it so I will assume that you have.

    Actually I’ve never read the report. My conclusions come from my own observation of what happened.

    As to your final point, you still have not shown any evidence that the government destroyed those buildings. It is the opinion of most of those who frequent this site and their physics professor, Mr. Steven Jones, that the buildings were demolished by demolitions. Do you agree with them? Or do you believe the buildings were brought down by the fatal weakening of the columns and simple gravity? That’s what I was referring to when asking for you to show your money. :)

    Those who made money on the attacks were not BEHIND the attacks. They may have made a ton of money off it, but that does not mean the destroyed the buildings. I’m looking for evidence that the buildings did NOT come down because of those planes. Do you have that kind of evidence?

  68. Dan
    October 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm #

    Kelly,

    I’m not fully knowledgeable in the area either. I know that both planes came into the buildings fairly quickly. At what speed exactly? Who knows. I know the second plane came in much faster than the first. The South Tower also came down first, even though the North Tower was hit first. The plane hitting the South Tower came in much faster. You can see it on the video.

    Kelly, you still have not answered my earlier question. You left it unanswered. Please respond. Do you really think the government was so expert and so efficient that they managed to destroy those buildings without most of the world recognizing it? Especially filmed as much as this attack was. Do you really think our government was that efficient? Taking into consideration everything else they’ve done, Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, you name it.

    What is more likely? That our government on the one terrorist attack on our nation managed to tear those buildings down in such a manner that we couldn’t tell it was them, but in everything else they do, they muck it up as badly as they can? Or that indeed, those towers, including WTC 7 all came down because of two planes crashing in just right to bring both buildings, and several surrounding buildings, including WTC 7 down.

    I don’t know about you, but the latter makes far more sense to me.

  69. Jay
    October 1, 2007 at 1:49 pm #

    Steve,

    So it would seem to me that a devout member of the LDS church is by definition a person who ought to accept the possibility of secret combinations, murder as a political tool and assignment of blame onto innocent parties. It’s in the Book of Mormon.

    It was also the subject of one of my favorite talks by President Benson in one of his last general conference addresses. “I Testify” can be found here. It’s pretty interesting.

    Jay

  70. Kelly Winterton
    October 1, 2007 at 1:50 pm #

    Dan asks:

    “I’m looking for evidence that the buildings did NOT come down because of those planes. Do you have that kind of evidence?”

    Yeah, I like the evidence that no plane hit building #7, and there was molten metal that persisted in the sub-basements of all 3 buildings for a few weeks long.

  71. Kelly Winterton
    October 1, 2007 at 2:04 pm #

    Dan asks me (Kelly):

    “Kelly, you still have not answered my earlier question. You left it unanswered. Please respond. Do you really think the government was so expert and so efficient that they managed to destroy those buildings without most of the world recognizing it?”

    I will try to answer briefly, but I don’t have all the answers. I do have many unanswered questions, though.

    I’m with you in believing the US government is incapable of pulling off 9/11. But, I believe US government is only a front, with the real people running our government are behind the curtain, as in the Wizard of Oz. There are sinister forces behind our “puppet” government, and these forces are the ones to look to. Bush is only a puppet who can read stories about pet goats. These secret forces are the forces that really run our planet (not just USA). They are the secret combos Mormon and Moroni talk about. They like to work in secret and we don’t hear much about them. CFR, Skull and Bones, CNP, PNAC, international bankers, and Trilateral commission come to mind.

    But I believe we are seeing a rare thing in Dick Cheney. He loves to work in secret, yet he is also a public figure. I propose Cheney was fully aware of the inner secret workings going on that morning, and Bush was just the puppet. Cheney is quite a bit smarter than Bush.

    Does that begin to answer your question Dan? I was pretty blunt.

  72. Jay
    October 1, 2007 at 3:33 pm #

    Just curious, if the CFR is all that bad, (and I think it is) how does anyone here feel about our general authority, Elder Staheli of the seventy, being a member? It’s a situation that I’m still scratching my head over.

    Jay

  73. Kelly Winterton
    October 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm #

    Jay, an interesting question. I have tried doing some research on Staheli, and, as you can imagine, there isn’t a lot of stuff on CFR members to be found. (As in secret combinations!) One trusted source of mine told me she was researching the same, and seemed to think that Staheli is no longer a member now. But that is all hear-say.

    Another interesting tidbit is that Mitt Romney is now CFR, coinciding with his bid for president.

    Seems that a requirement for being pres nowadays is the membership in either CFR or Skull and Bones!

  74. Jay
    October 1, 2007 at 4:46 pm #

    Yeah, I knew about Romney. That’s just one of the many reasons that I would never support him. I hope that what you say about Staheli is correct, but even if it is, it still makes me wonder about how someone in the CFR could become a GA in the first place. I’m not trying to outthink the Lord on this, it’s just an honest, curious observation.

    Levi worked for the Roman IRS and was still made an apostle, so who am I to judge?

    Jay

  75. Kelly Winterton
    October 1, 2007 at 5:08 pm #

    Yep, gotta have faith in the Lord’s better judgement. I remember a talk by Benson once when he said over the pulpit that there were authorities of all different stripes and parties in the church, and some of them were wolves in sheep’s clothing. This surprised me when I heard it from him, but the Spirit whispered to me that the church was still trying to be politically neutral, allowing all men their own opinion in the political arena!

  76. Dan
    October 1, 2007 at 8:04 pm #

    Hmmm,

    so let’s see, Romney joins CFR while continuing to have the full support of the Brethren. Hmmm…

    Either

    1. CFR is NOT a secret combination

    or

    2. The Brethren know it is and are not speaking out, and in fact, even helping members of this supposed “secret combination” become president.

    Hmmm…

    I don’t know what the CFR has done to make you think they are a secret combination, because from my vantage point, I think they’re quite benign, especially in comparison to that John Birch Society or the CNP. For example, this little snippet from the wikipedia on the CFR:

    On 24 November 1953, a study group heard a report from political scientist William Henderson regarding the ongoing conflict between France and Vietnamese Communist leader Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh forces, a struggle that would later become known as the First Indochina War. Henderson argued that Ho’s cause was primarily nationalist in nature and that Marxism had “little to do with the current revolution.” Further, the report said, the United States could work with Ho to guide his movement away from Communism. State Department officials, however, expressed skepticism about direct American intervention in Vietnam and the idea was tabled. Over the next twenty years, the United States would find itself allied with anti-Communist South Vietnam and against Ho and his supporters in Vietnam War.[19]

    If the CFR were indeed out to gain control and subjugate the world and bring it to kneel before them, would it make sense to try and gain an ally like Ho Chi Minh? In fact, the United States rejected that sage advice and instead aligned itself with the South Vietnamese, and ended up losing the Vietnam War. It seems that if they followed the advice from the CFR, war might have been averted. Makes sense to me.

    But I can totally see how they totally fit your notion of a “secret combination.”

    This surprised me when I heard it from him, but the Spirit whispered to me that the church was still trying to be politically neutral, allowing all men their own opinion in the political arena!

    You say this as if it is wrong. Are you disagreeing with your prophet?

    Thank you for answering my question, Kelly. One point:

    But, I believe US government is only a front, with the real people running our government are behind the curtain, as in the Wizard of Oz.

    Okay, that’s fine and all, but, well, where would these secret conspirators get the operations and equipment and manpower to do this little dirty work of secretly bringing the towers down?

    And a bigger question to ask is this: WHY would they need to blow up the towers? Wouldn’t planes crashing into the two towers killing at least hundreds of people not be shocking enough to get Americans to back their warmongering? Why the need to actually bring the towers down?

  77. Kelly Winterton
    October 1, 2007 at 10:14 pm #

    As for Ho Chi Minh, I don’t know enough about it, but if you’d like to get a very deeply researched article on another viewpoint about France and Viet Nam and our ultimate involvement, I might suggest this link which I just read last night:

    http://www.spingola.com/power_elite_playbook1.htm

    As for other questions, no, I didn’t mean that I disagreed with President Benson, the Spirit seemed to whisper to me why President Benson was correct and my first reaction was wrong.

    As for why the buildings would need to be imploded when just a couple of plane crashes would suffice, I would point to the fact that the WTC complex was losing mega amounts of money every year, occupancy rates were dismal, and the buildings had been given waivers repeatedly for the removal of asbestos, which would have been far more expensive to remove than it would be simply to implode them. My suggestion is that Silverstein was indeed complicit and he stood to gain much. (And he has seemed to come out smelling like a rose, having insured the buildings against terrorist acts just three months previous.)

    By the way, I fail to agree with you that the Brethren are fully supporting Romney. The Brethren have explicitely said they endorse no one, keeping with the Church doctrine of neutrality.

  78. Jay
    October 1, 2007 at 10:41 pm #

    Romney has the full support of the brethren in the same sense that probably any LDS would. We are encouraged to be involved and active in civic affairs and to run for government offices. Romney is doing what we all have been encouraged to do, so of course he would have the support of the brethren. Why wouldn’t he?That doesn’t mean they agree with him or will vote for him. To declare him as a favorite or of any preference, would be contrary to the Church’s position on neutrality.

    Besides, a vote for Romney would be contrary to our counsel to befriend the law of the land, i.e., the Constitution.

    Jay

  79. Steve Snelgrove
    October 1, 2007 at 11:55 pm #

    Guys,

    Read very carefully the posts by Dan.

    He is not LDS and so why post on this blog? He is by far the most frequent poster. He incites arguments and contention in every post.

    Dan, sorry to say, you are an agent provocateur.

  80. Dan
    October 2, 2007 at 4:26 am #

    Kelly,

    By the way, I fail to agree with you that the Brethren are fully supporting Romney. The Brethren have explicitely said they endorse no one, keeping with the Church doctrine of neutrality.

    Wait a second. You see a conspiracy in every corner, but the moment it comes close to touching your own prophet, you slide away. Why? The Brethren may have said they publicly endorse no one, but don’t kid yourself, Kelly. You bet they want Romney to win. Com’on. You say you know much of the secret goings on of various groups. What about our own church?

  81. Dan
    October 2, 2007 at 4:27 am #

    Steve,

    Huh, so being the second counsellor in my branch presidency doesn’t make me a member these days, eh? Having a temple recommend doesn’t make me a member these days. What a dope you are.

    As for being a provocateur, you bet. Some theories you need to hit head on, to challenge them full front, before they gain too much traction.

  82. Steve Snelgrove
    October 2, 2007 at 7:34 am #

    Dan,

    Well I am sorry and didn’t mean to offend you. You know as I listen to your arguments, I begin to think that you are right. Good luck and hope things go well for you in the branch.

  83. Jay
    October 2, 2007 at 8:46 am #

    I don’t believe that the brethren want Romney to win. I think that most of them still believe in honoring the laws of the land. You can’t have both.

    Jay

  84. Dr. Steven Jones
    October 10, 2007 at 3:30 pm #

    Connor,

    Thank you for your email, and especially for your blog on “questions about 9/11″ which I found when I visited your site today for the first time. I read some of the comments; some were unkind/ad hominem towards me along with misrepresentations of what I have written.

    I’ve served in the Church as Bishop’s counselor (twice) and as Bishop, and it’s hard for me to understand these backbiting attacks when I’m just trying to find and tell the truth as well as I can… But then I recalled that Pres. Packer at a BYU devotional early this year reminded us of Lehi’s dream and warned: “Not all of the mocking comes from outside the Church.”
    I may post something at your blog, commenting, if I’ve time.

    Meanwhile, I hope people can become aware of my latest major paper on this (I’m still doing research): http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf . Answers many questions. Also, I have copies of my talk on 9/11 research given summer 2007 at the Orem Friendship Center to a crowd of about 700 people (some standing). Great evening. I am making copies and will give freely — as the Lord has richly blessed me and my family in these troubled times.

    Steven Jones

  85. Kelly Winterton
    November 16, 2007 at 11:49 pm #

    I have been reading everything I can on 9/11, and have recently read and heard about thermite being a slow explosive compared to other types of explosives. Some question that if thermite or thermate were used, it wouldn’t have blown the outer beams out laterally at high velocity for hundreds of feet. But, the slower burning thermite probably would be great at slicing beams at the 45 degree angles we saw in many of the pictures of the debris. Perhaps 2 different types of explosives were used? One to slice beams to get the structure to come down straight into its own footprint, and then another type of explosive to pulverize the concrete and force the outer beams of the towers out in a lateral direction hundreds of feet? Perhaps this is why there are so many witness that tell of explosions happening even before the towers started to come down?

    Of course, building 7 appears to be much more like a conventional controlled demolition, because that building was only 47 storeys high. The videos of #7 do not show any pieces of building blowing out, so it appears to be an IMPLOSION, not a series of explosions as in the twin towers.

    The height of the 2 towers probably called for an unconventional method of controlled demolition, since I don’t think any other building of such height has ever been imploded before.

    If Professor Jones happens to visit this blog again, we would sure be honored to have him comment on this.

    I have heard him speak in person twice, and I think he’s inspired in the things he is doing.

  86. Josh Williams
    November 17, 2007 at 12:55 pm #

    Connor,

    - How did the commission come about?
    – Who were its members? What credentials do they have?
    – Were there any potential conflicts of interest?
    – Can we fully believe a report where the government investigates itself?
    – What was the commission’s objective when created? Was that objective fully met?

    All off these question are irrelevant.

    If, given the evidence, the arguments and conclusions of the WTCC are valid ones, who cares who they are or where they come from!? All that matters is the evidence, and the conclusions we draw from it. Therefore, only your last question:

    Since its publication, has the report been criticized, debunked, or opposed by anybody with qualifications to do so? What contradictory evidence has been offered?

    ….can be said to be relevant.

    If the WTC towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 attack, why did two of them fall from an attack by a very similar plane?……

    Since there had been no precedent, for designing skyscrapers to withstand collisions with jet-liners, I might argue that the engineers were totally shooting in the dark. In my opinion, they did an admirable job of it, considering the towers did not fail immediately.

    Kelly,

    I am far from an expert on failure analysis, but I am not ignorant of the subject.

    In my opinion, the fact that the beams ruptured at roughly a 45 degree angle, is good evidence of two things:

    1) The beams were under compression.

    Metals tend to fail, not due to compressive or tensile stress, but due to “shear stress.”

    For reasons I won’t discuss here, the maximum shear stress tends to lie at a 45 degree angle from the “principal stress.” A clever failure analyst can use this fact, to roughly estimate the direction of the forces an object was subject to when it failed. In fact, a clean, 45 degree break is very common for materials that are under pure compression.

    2) The buildings were well engineered. The columns were wide enough, spaced properly, and well braced enough to prevent them from buckling or “kneeling”, even under the most extreme of forces.

    Actually, many of the columns that were found that did buckle, also showed signs of heat damage from the fire, around the area where they folded.

    Keep in mind, all of this is a matter of my opinion, and I am not an expert.

    Thanks to Dr. Jones for commenting. I am sorry to hear that people have resorted to the illogical and irrelevant methods of Ad Hominem character assassination. If the evidence, arguments, and conclusions you present are valid, then they ought to speak for themselves. If not, then critics should provide counter-examples.

  87. Sam Hennis
    November 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm #

    Josh,

    You may want to watch this documentary film. It’s about an hour & a half in length. It shows some footage from the morning of 9/11 which you probably haven’t seen.

  88. Kelly Winterton
    November 18, 2007 at 2:07 pm #

    Josh, too bad I can’t just post a picture of the beams that were cut at angle mimmicking the exact way they do other controlled demos. I have a couple of thes pics on my computer, but I’m sure you could also find them on the web if you searched. These beams in the rubble show slag and hardened, cooled metal drippings from the cuts. This is NOT indicative of a break or snap. For me, it is one of the “smoking guns” proving controlled demolition.

  89. Jim
    February 5, 2008 at 2:49 am #

    Please forgive me this trespass as I am not a Mormon. I came across this site while searching for the author of the Patriot Act. I have spent alot of time at 911truth.org and have come to respect Professor Steven Jones and his work. I wanted to add to this conversation that NIST’s report and any other on the matter were immediately compromised when the crime scene evidence was unprecedently removed and shipped away for recycling. This will make it hard to provide Dan the proof he is looking for.

    People get upset and unruly when faced with the proposition that our government may have been behind these attacks so I have come to focus on the need for a new investigation rather than speculate what might have happenned. If everyone would agree that we need an independent investigation, that would be a good start.

    Valid reasons for a new investigation include but are not limited to the following :

    Victims families have not had their questions answered.

    FBI agents had investigations deliberately thwarted by their superiors. Instead of being reprimanded for these actions, their superiors received promotions.

    FAA employes made tape recorded accounts of what happened on 9/11 and they were deliberately destroyed.

    Saudi Arabia denied US authorities the opportunity to question family members of the hijackers and the US government apparently didn’t mind.

    The Bin Laden in the tape that claims responsibility does not look like the Bin Laden in any other tapes.

    Multiple witnesses reported huge explosions prior to and during the tower collapses.

    Members of the 9/11 panel and at least one member that stepped down state that the investigation was compromised.

    Bush and Chaney refused to testify seperately to the 9/11 commission.

    There are many other odd mysteries surround 9/11 and the days leading up to it as well as the days that followed, but these reasons alone should be enough to grant victims families the peace of mind they deserve.

  90. Jody
    February 5, 2008 at 7:45 am #

    Jim,

    No trespass whatsoever! You don’t have to be a Mormon to peruse this site. Many of those that comment aren’t. Sometimes it just helps you understand Connor’s religious posts a little better. And often, the motivation behind his political preferences as well.

    Stop by again! :)

  91. Kelly W.
    February 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm #

    Jim,

    I have also tried to find the author of the Patriot Act. I sent a letter to Orrin Hatch (since some people allege that he was one of the authors) and asked him two questions 1) who authored the P.A., and 2) when was it written?

    He replied back to me stating when the act was introduced and passed.

    He outright dodged my 2 simple questions. So I replied back that either he was really stupid, or else he was purposely evading my questions.

    He replied to me once again, but artfully gave another response that was evasive.

    The P.A. was obviously written well in advance of the actual attacks on 9/11. No one could have authored more than 800 pages of legislation during the 4 weeks between the attacks and when it was voted upon.

    My cousin who once worked for the CIA claims that the P.A. was written in the decade(s) previous to 9/11 and was sitting on the shelf just waiting for the climate to change so the public would support such radical changes.

    Others have claimed Michael Chertoff to be one of the main authors.

    But, I really don’t know the author. You’d think the complete history of such a monumental bill would be readily available. But, no.

    Have you been able to find the author? I’d be interested.

  92. Jim
    February 21, 2008 at 3:27 am #

    Thanks for the kind welcome. Kelly, I still haven’t had any luck. Sounds like you’ve come much closer to discovering the truth than me so far. I will continue the quest as well. I too believe that it must have been created well in advance. If I find out I’ll let you know.

  93. Kelly W.
    February 21, 2008 at 9:58 am #

    Jim, I have also heard that there was another author. Perhaps they all worked as a team? see below for a quick copy and paste of that other author:

    Professor Viet Dinh (SOC, OT 1994), who is now back at Georgetown Law, after a stint heading up the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy (OLP), takes second place behind Professor Volokh (his predecessor in SOC’s chambers).

  94. Jim
    February 27, 2008 at 11:34 pm #

    I was just about to post my finding of Viet Dinh.. you beat me to it!. I stumbled across his name in the following article which also mentions Michael Chertoff :

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5325.htm

  95. Kelly W.
    February 28, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    Jim, it’s pretty evident that Cheney doesn’t want anyone to know the origin of the Patriot Act. Somehow, I don’t think our Founding Fathers had that in mind. Keeping the origins in secret smacks of Secret Combinations.

  96. Connor
    September 28, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    It’s nice to see that the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 commission, along with other members of that commission, agrees with me now:

    The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

    Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities’ School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

    Farmer states: “…at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened… I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

  97. oldmama
    May 13, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    i would be interested to know if anyone has changed his/her opinion since most of these posts–

  98. Kelly W.
    November 21, 2010 at 8:19 pm #

    There is now proof that the three skyscrapers were brought down by controlled demolition. The evidence of nano-thermite is in the dust from the WTC. The “red-gray” chips and iron-rich microspheres formed from the ignition of the red-gray chips has been documented by a number of scientists. Results can be read at

    http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

    There has been much more evidence of controlled demolition come forth since Connor wrote this post back in September 2007. It is quite important to study this new evidence, which really is “the smoking gun” which puts to rest any of the speculation of the above posts.

    This new evidence, which shows beyond doubt the inside job-nature of the 9/11 attacks ought to put much into perspective as people discuss things like the necessity of “naked scanners” at airports, etc.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.