Wow. Just when you think things can't get any stranger, every day something new shocks the system. Does the administration really wanna catch this guy? I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but a lot of things just don't add up here, even under this administration. Did we make a deal with Saudi Arabia we wouldn't go after him?

Cheney would not let either Delta or the Rangers "go get 'em", as they are too convenient a reason for keeping up the debacle in the ME. Saddam's been dangled, so without them, what justification would Emperor Cheney have for keeping troops in Iraq? According to him, al-Qaeda is running rampant in the streets of Baghdad. And so is McDonald's.

And, apparently, so is Iran, or so they'd like us to believe.

Jeff you could join those of us that believe 9/11 was allowed to happen.

Always the joker, JohnT. Hilarious!

Anyhow, I know I've been pimping Josh Marshall today, but he's got a lot of stuff up about the privatization of the military that's pretty interesting, and check out the report on corruption in Iraq. Pretty crazy to see it all in writing.

JohnT: what do you think when Bush continues to read, poorly of course, My Pet Goat, while Emperor Cheney is down in the bunker beneath the White House calling the shots.

In addition, why were there absolutely no witnesses to the plane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. You would think a large airliner coming in at 530 mph at 50 feet would attract some attention, n'est pas? And no seats, luggage or bodies in the wreckage? I’m not a conspiracy nut, but this smells like a KKKarl / Cheney plan.

PS: I don't have any idea what hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't a 737, that's for sure.

Whether 9/11 was an inside is separate from the very reasonable inference that Bush/Cheney don't want to capture Bin Laden. Why should they? I can't imagine why---he's much more useful to them alive and free than dead or captured.

Mark L - agree. OBL seems to have had a get of jail free card.

I'm also suspicious of all these reports that we could have gotten OBL if only... Does any of it do anything but keep the WOT alive to justify future US military missions/actions?

And if OBL is on the loose and still a threat, why can't he issue a new video? It's not as if such equipment isn't available almost anywhere on the planet these days.

there is government footage of the explosion at the Pentagon, from a Pentagon surveillance camera on the grounds. This footage has been widely viewed. No plane is seen prior to the explosion. Sure, you say, that footage was a copy and anything can be Photoshopped. But if the government had footage showing the plane, why not release it? Can anyone point to a government site with such footage? I recently watched a cable news station replay the entire 9/11 attack as seen from their reporting at the time. The blast at the Pentagon was initially reported as a bomb or truck bomb. The plane crash was added later in the morning as a possible cause. I know people who know people who swear they saw the plane flying very low across D.C. in the direction of the Pentagon. But tell me, exactly how many eye witnesses do you recall being broadcast? As we all know, no large plane wreckage was recovered from the hole...no reconstructed remains of the fusilage were ever done (common FAA post-crash policy). Maybe it was a plane, but proof ??? Our government has not provided any that I know of. If you do, please tell me where I can see it. And while your at it, give me the reason Tower 7 collapsed.

Whether 9/11 was an inside is separate from the very reasonable inference that Bush/Cheney don't want to capture Bin Laden.

Not separate at all, sir. Asking why Bush/Cheney don't want to catch Bin Laden is the same as asking why OJ isn't out looking for the "real killer". Because he doesn't fucking exist (anymore, as in Bin Laden's case).

Afghanistan, which somehow turns to Iraq, which somehow turns to Iran; all of which was made possible by 9/11. Coincidence? Or master plan?

And speaking of my belief that ex-CIA man Bin Laden is dead and has been dead since before 9/11, I love how everybody from the MSM to KO to Bill Maher is questioning why Bin Laden colored his beard in this latest tape.

Some say it's a sign of verility. Some say he wants to rub it in our face that he's alive and well.

Maybe. Or maybe we could consider the most obvious possibility -- THAT IT'S NOT REALLY HIM.

Fuck me gently with a chainsaw, people. They don't even TRY to make him look like the real guy anymore!!

When the next Bin Laden tape is released, I swear he'll be a blonde guy wearing fucking Groucho Marx glasses w/ the fake nose and mustache. And people won't think twice about it.

Maybe it was a plane, but proof ??? Our government has not provided any that I know of. If you do, please tell me where I can see it.

T2, where were you a couple weeks ago when I asked for the same thing and got a beat down?? 8)

Coulda used you, brah.

MV, you were given pictures and arguments, but alla you guys want to believe so much, it's become a religion. Human nature, I guess.

Not a religion really, just a bucket of dead fish left out in the sun.

iamcoyote..where are the photos? I must have missed the last dust-up on this.

Bush/Cheney are simply too incompetent to have caused 9/11 (other than turning a blind eye).

Gay Veteran: there is the incompetency arguement, but perhaps they hired somebody with brains to implement it. You know, maybe Alex Trebek or PeeWee Herman!

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

Damnit, Coyote, I was given ONE picture. This.

That's it. Assuming this is part of the plane, notice how there's no sign of charring or any kind of burn damage on it.

Regardless, you know how we could stop this argument once and for all? If the FBI would release just ONE of the 83 video cameras that caught whatever it was at the Pentagon. Just 1 out of 83.

The FBI's response? "There's nothing on them."

but alla you guys want to believe so much, it's become a religion.

Bullshit. The Official Story is the religion. Look how swiftly you rise to defend it. Look at the "Let's Roll" heroes of United 93. It's a fairy tale, but you cling to it like scripture.

I question. You believe. Apparently because you have so much faith in the Cheney administration. They must be telling us the truth because they've been SO honest ever since.

Thats the picture thats supposed to prove a plane hit?? That is the only piece that survived? I don't know how many cameras are on the Pentagon, but I'm guessing several. No plane on any. Now, these planes are pretty big, right?

I too have had difficulty believing, despite an admittedly growing body of sound arguments that the Cheney Administration actually caused the collapse of the three towers for the simple reason that such a large conspiracy would have been involved.

In order to blow three huge buildings, literally hundreds of charges would have had to be placed, directly against structural members of each building. The explosions have to be exquisitely timed. Normal demolition teams use detacord, which would have been more than a little messy. Government level military Special Forces or "Intelligence" agency types MIGHT be able to set up an elaborate, radio controlled detonation, but wouldn't those type of people object to staggering mass murder?

It would have occurred over a period which, if done in complete secrecy, would have to extend for many weeks. Assuming the operatives posed as maintenance personnel, they would have to keep their handiwork unseen by dozens of security personnel and hundreds of "real" maintenance personnel. WHO has the competence to accomplish that?

It's a possible, but daunting scenario. One would also have to conclude that such a large operation and massive loss of life would have stirred no remorse in any of those involved, or that any such problems were eliminated, perhaps preemptively. I don't think I want to go there.

HOWEVER, I have no trouble at all in believing the truly evil crowd of neoclowns (clowns like Chucky) would ignore all evidence and make sure no effective action would be taken while they dreamed fetid dreams of " a new Pearl Harbor" enabling their plans of deceit, profit and, above all, POWER.

I have no explanation for the Pentagon strike. I've never heard of any kind of accident that so completely vaporized a passenger plane as to leave no evidence. THAT one sounds like a missile to me. One grainy video I did see streaking into the Pentagon was much too small to be a 737. Perhaps they could find enough corrupt cronies to divert a missile to make sure the Military was a victim, too. Why? I don't know. He's third base!

Hold on, MV, Coyote is one of the best TLC has. Don't go after her. You may disagree on points, but that's what a blog is meant for.

There was one very small piece of fuselage and one bit of landing gear photographed. Nothing that couldn't be carried by the average goon. I hate to go on about this, but there is no way a loaded passenger jet hit the Pentagon. And building 7 at the WTC? Maybe it just felt like joining it’s fellow buildings. It wasn’t hit by anything. Curious.

Lastly, the linear, synchronous explosions caught on film at the North Tower have been universally evaluated by demolition experts as planted explosives. Please explain.

Hold on, MV, Coyote is one of the best TLC has. Don't go after her. You may disagree on points, but that's what a blog is meant for.

I know, but that was a pre-emptive strike. The woman earns her handle when I stick my head out. She attacks like the ruthless, mongrel dog she calls herself. 8) And I mean that with respect.

I agree with DeminNJ. Setting charges and the other manipulations would be hard to do without some leak, at least by now. I was with a structural engineer when the buildings collapsed and I turned to him and asked how that could happen. He said it was crazy, but it could happen due to heat and the curtain wall construction. That doesn't explain Tower 7.
Now the Pentagon...we know a plane is unaccounted for. We also know there was Air Cap flying by that time. We know that all planes are tracked on radar. We know there was a big explosion. We can see the pattern of the explosion. Was it what an airliner would do? We know there was virtually no evidence in the Pentagon (excepting of course, the piece shown well away from the building in the photo, with no charring). We know there was no video showing a plane hit. Could an errant US missle, fired at the jet, hit the Pentagon? Not with so much damage. Was the plane diverted and all passengers sworn to a life in silent hiding? Somehow the idea of all the passengers and crew living secret lives does't seem likely, could they have been dispatched?Could the jet have hit the building and disentegrated, just as Bush's government has told us. Lots of questions and few answers...which is why a real investigation, instead of the 9/11 Panel handpicked by Bush, would have been great. Too bad Cheney/Bush did and are doing everything in their power to keep such a true investigation from occuring. Hard to believe no video shows a plane, though.

I shouldn'ta done this, but here's the pics that give pretty much a good idea of the plane parts. Hopefully, I'll be able to do both links. There are other links at these links to scientific simulations that answer all the questions about what happened at the pentagon. In looking for these photos, I discovered all the conspiracy sites show the back end of the hole in the pentagon, pretending that's supposedly where the plane went in. Total trickery.
Slide show.
Pics from the inside of the building. The plane is not unaccounted for.

She is tough, but good on her.

If any of you really wanted to see all the evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon you could find it very easily.

Let me ask you this. If the conspirators, whoever they are, flew two passenger planes into the towers of the WTC why would they fly a missile into the Pentagon and try and make everyone believe it was a passanger airliner by making a plane full of people disappear into thin air?

Sorry, but some of the comments posted in this thread make me seriously question the rational thinking abilities of the commenters.

Okay, those are certainly more compelling photos than the stock picture I linked to earlier. I'll even concede that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. Flight 77, just like they said.

Still wish I could see some video of the actual impact, though. But regardless, you have filled in one piece of the puzzle.

I still don't believe those hijackers were capable of doing the flying they did.

I know the whole discussion is a waste of time, but the tagline '(U.S. Marine Corps/image enhancement by Pentagon Building Performance Study Team)' pretty well sums up the government video evidence released.

don't they have any photos of the initial explosion that shows a plane or even a shadow? Just pictures of the firefighters.The easiest explanation of all is that a plane hit the building. The nice slide show has lots of pictures showing where the plane hit but by then it had already burned completely up, I guess. We should know better than to doubt the word of George Bush and Dick Cheney. True patriots.

I accept your apology, MV. Just because I have my own idea of what happened based on all the evidence I saw after a year of research after 9-11, doesn't mean I'm buying anyone's "official story." Just because I don't believe your conspiracy stories doesn't mean I'm a cheney buttbot.

I still don't believe those hijackers were capable of doing the flying they did.

Sorry, but there's really nothing to it, if you've flown a simulator, which the hijackers did. I've only had two sim flights in an H-46 and I'll bet I could keep a real one in the air for a little while.

I wouldn't put anything past this admin and the criminals they enable, but just because someone is capable of perfidy, doesn't mean they're guilty of it in this case. As I've always said: what Bushco is covering up is they were warned and they didn't prepare; they knew something was coming, and they blew it off. The people who were supposed to be watching were underfunded, underconnected, had obsolete equipment and weren't managed properly. Isn't that a bad enough situation without adding little green men to it? Guess it's just not sexy enuff, huh?

T2 - think about it. If they gave out the video that actually showed a plane, the wild conspiracy stuff would die down and the relevent questions might start being asked. They don't want that. They'd rather people think of the tin-hat crowd when someone raises the question of "what really happened" on 9-11. It's worked pretty good so far.

iamcoyote - thanks for the link pics. Not that I needed them. I'm soo tired of the 9/11 CT - beats me why they find it so difficult to believe that four US passenger planes were hijacked, crashed into three buildings and one field and caused three building to collapse and severely damage a fourth one. Not to say that there aren't legitimate questions about that day, only that the physical cause and effect isn't mysterious.

don't they have any photos of the initial explosion that shows a plane or even a shadow?

Surveillance cameras aren't set up to capture photos of objects moving at several hundred miles an hour.

We should know better than to doubt the word of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yeah, that's it. When shown the evidence just make a flippant comment about how those who believe the evidence are just Bush worshippers.

snark, you know I didn't do that.

And , if you've looked at the working hypothesis that the NIST has regarding the collapse of WTC Tower 7 it really isn't that difficult to begin to understand. Anyone who says the building wasn't hit by anything significant is lying because there's no way they could nkow that. There are virtually no images that show the extent of damage to the south side and interior of tower 7. The construction of the building was unique. It was built over a Con Ed substation and had major columns which supported a disproportionate amount of the load. These columns were located in an area in line with where the initial kink in the collapsing building occured. And it didn't fall straight down either. It fell to one side. Photos of the collapsed building clearly show the facade of the north face of the building laying atop the rest of the pile. It didn;t fall like a professional demolition. Also, NIST has had a preliminary look into the possibility of demolition charges being used in the building. Ever wonder why they remove all the windows from buildings they are going to implode? Because they would turn into millions of slivers of flying glass from the over pressure when the demo charges went off. Odd thing is, that didn't happen when building 7 collapsed. Hmmmmmm?

I know tempus. That bit I quoted about taking Bush and Cheney's word wasn't from your comments.

Well snark, you are an Manhatten architect, so I can't argue with your professional opinion. Case closed.

Gawd, I've had too much Dayquil for my cold. I can't string a sentence together. Oh well.

Marie, no prob, and it's good to have the info on hand for these discussions. Here's a good article on the NORAD tapes, as well. It helps give an idea of what was happening behind the scenes with the FAA. Another good resource is Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, which pretty much shows how totally unprepared the admin was that day. A really great read, too.

Case closed.

Not closed. Yet. But these debates are always filled with so much misinformation. I don't simply accept unquestioningly the official version of events but I at least inform myself about what is and is not known.

The nice slide show has lots of pictures showing where the plane hit but by then it had already burned completely up, I guess.

T2, the second link showed pics inside the building with the landing gear and other parts. Did you check that one out?

Great job Coyote...never was doubt in my mind about what happened...just doubt about the cabal's version of how it happened...saw a thing a while back in Popular Mechanic about how the intense heat weakened the Twin Towers and that makes sense....having read Wolfowitz's diatribe in 91' (the prelude to the PNAC Manifesto) and the need for a prosetylizing event assures me that the aftermath and Bush appointed 9-11 inquiry were slanted to get the neo-con message out...as for OBL...boy that last video clip sure looked like a Hallowe'en costume with dyed beard and all....this guy is the only myth left that can strengthen the "vote for us and be safe" mantra...all rubbish tho'...you have a better chance of winning powerball than being killed in a terror attack....quite shallow of all of us to beat the same old dog about this conspiracy or that one....bottom line these morons are only good at lying and stealing elections (and gay hummers...lol) and couldn't organize anything like 9-11.

Thanks, Goyo, and who knows about bin Laden's videos. It's sure been a benefit to Bush having that bogeyman around.

snark, you're right, the case isn't really closed, since, as far as I can tell, nothing has changed in the way of communication and security since then, except for reinforced doors on planes and you gotta take your shoes off at the gate. As far as I know, even the radios between the cops and firemen in NY haven't been upgraded, have they?

As far as I know, even the radios between the cops and firemen in NY haven't been upgraded, have they?

They don't seem to be any more reliable. Apparently there were all kinds of communication problems during the fire in the Deutche Bank Building a few weeks back that killed to firefighters.

Oh, man, snark, I heard about that, didn't know about the radios. Geez. I think it was Randi Rhodes who said that they didn't want to give them certain airwaves because they're supposedly for commercial use, and the corps don't want to give them up.

But I did want to give you props for the info about bldg 7, and helping debunk the "free fall" argument of the two towers. I wish I could consolidate it all in one place since it's been in several threads all over, because it was very convincing (to me, anyhow).

It's all out there. You just have to look farther than the sites by the hucksters.

You're darn tootin' kiddo. It took me at least 10 pages of google images to find one pic that wasn't on a conspiracy site! 'Course that's they way it is, right? The simple truth is dull. Spooky spy stuff is fun! I can understand. I was one of the first XFiles fans. Still love that crap. Just don't believe in it, is all.

Well now that the pentagon plane has been cleared up, let's move onto another CT of mine---how many think that Cheney didn't really want to capture Osmama at Tora Bora and hence didn't deploy any American ground troops to seal the area?

That's the one I've always been curious about, and which made the most sense as a CT to me. Troops could certainly have been made available in Jan '02, there was no doubt that the largest concentration of al qaeda and Taliban forces had been caught and surrounded, and many suspected OBL was in the trap (Where else would he be?) Yet no 10th Mountain. Why?

What about that 1% doctrine, CinC Deadeye? No longer operative for some reason?

Oops, didn't mean to imply I questioned the plane crashing into the pentagon....

euzoius: don't expect Deadeye to admit to anything. He'd be in jail for the rest of this century if he did.

euzoius, either they let bin Laden go, or they were too stupid to realize that by outsourcing OBL's capture to locals who prolly were his friends they were, in essence, letting him get away.

There is certainly a great deal of explaining to do as to why they haven't caught OBL, other than he is a convenient bogeyman, which is all Dickhead wants. Screw the Shrub, he is just 'yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir'. Pickles slaps him around when she feels like it.

I mean, how in the world could Team Bushco sell the invasion of Iraq "product" if Osama was being waterboarded in Guantanimo in Feb 02? WMD? Links to (incarcerated) bin ladin? Falls kinda flat.

What would they say? Rape Rooms? (Nero's kinda strange "favorite")

The whole evil madman "WMDs-on-his-own-people" Saddam-bedpan change becomes pretty damn hard with an Osama captured in early 02, eh?

I can understand the questions regarding OBL escaping Tora Bora. But, we hadn't begin to experience the level of casualties in the GWOT back in 02 that we've seen since Bush invaded Iraq. In hindsight it seems like a no brainer but at that point a general telling Bush to expect 4 figure casualties if we went in there would have sounded a lot different. But I wouldn't put letting him slip if they thought he was more useful that way.

iamcoyote, I've seen a movie where spaceships fly all over, and look really real. just kidding. A video of the crash is all I asked about....there ain't one.

Too many violations of physics:

1) Towers 1 and 2 fell at near free fall speeds. Given the central core of 47 steel beams, even a progressive collapse would have slowed near the bottom.

2) A jumbo jet traveling > 400 mph creates a shock wave below it (e.g. in ground effect) that would have made it impossible for it to hit the Pentagon at the height that it did. (Oh, and jet engines are almost always retrieved from crashes because their alloys don't melt in fuel-based fires)

I hope I live long enough to see the truth revealed, because the story we've been sold is crap.

Roy,

1) Have you watched the video of the towers falling down? If so you should have noticed that sections of the central cores many stories tall of each tower are visible still standing for several seconds after the floors and the perimeter walls have fallen. The "freefall speed" canard is bunk.

2) You're gonna have to provide a bit more evidence for this. Are you telling me that no plane travelling at several hundred miles an hour is capable of impacting the ground or a vertical structure because of the ground effect? Please elaborate. (And the engines were recovered. See the linked photos above.)

I hope I live long enough to see an end to pop pseudo-scientific 'analysis' of these events.

Roy,

One simple Google search is what it took me to find a debunking of the "a bubble of high pressure air would have made the plane bounce up and over the Pentagon" idiocy.

snark, I have great respect for your opinion, and Gawd knows I've tried to get coyote to forgive me, as I have tremendous respect for her's, but flogging a dead horse, how do you explain no seats, no luggage, and no bodies at the Pentagon.

I know I'm cranky as a result of my cold, but please explain these little problems...

how do you explain no seats, no luggage, and no bodies at the Pentagon.

These things were recovered. You don't get every last little bit because an airplane at speed becomes a big grinder, chewing everything to bits. If it's a water impact you get many bits. This plane hit a heavily built building.

And no witnesses as to a plane hitting the Pentagon? Right.

Great commentary, back and forth.

Couple of items.

On the slideshow, admittedly viewed in a cursory manner, items allegedly identified as "wheels" are not 757 wheels. As I kick 757 tires for a living, I think I know whereas and of. I am not saying it was not a 757, just those identified items are not what they are alleged to be.

Also, giant spools of "wire"? in front of crash site. No damage?

I believe many of you are correct, the Cheney admin wants tin-hat speculation to cover up their perfidy. That would be so, Rovian.

On the slideshow, admittedly viewed in a cursory manner, items allegedly identified as "wheels" are not 757 wheels. As I kick 757 tires for a living, I think I know whereas and of. I am not saying it was not a 757, just those identified items are not what they are alleged to be.

Sky-Ho,

I'm intrigued. Please elaborate. I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion and on what 'wheel' evidence you based it. The only photo I saw that identified 'wheels' in the slideshow that iamcoyote linked to was not a detailed photo of the wheel. The wheel only appeared as a small object in the background. Really, I'd like to know how you determined that the 'wheels' in question are not 757 wheels.

Also, giant spools of "wire"? in front of crash site. No damage?

Giant. Spools. Wire. Think about it. What's wire made of? What are the spools that they are transported on made of? What type of damage would you expect to see on them? You're willing to allow that some type of plane hit the Pentagon. Something knocked over a bunch of light poles on the adjacent roadway. Correct? Do you suppose someone moved those spools of wire into position in front of the damaged portion of the Pentagon while hundreds of firefighters were battling the flames? Or was the object that hit the Pentagon big enough to knock over light poles but small enough to miss the giant spools of wire?

I liked the X-files, and I still believe:

"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine." - - - William Blum

I get the impression no one looked at the second link of pictures I posted I posted upthread marked "Pics." There's many more photos there, including a side by side comparison of a tire rim in the wreckage and the tire of a 757. I should have put the two links further apart.

I was really interested in Sky-Ho's professional opinion. As he said, he kicks 'em everyday. Just wondering how he made his determination. He seems very confident.

There's a good analysis of the 'wheel' evidence here too.

Wow, that's an analysis. What a great site. I'm keeping that link. But you know, them aerospace guys are a shifty lot; they don't know what they're talking about 'cos they're scientists... Can't trust 'em, they have small hands and smell like cabbage...

I accept your apology, MV. Just because I have my own idea of what happened based on all the evidence I saw after a year of research after 9-11, doesn't mean I'm buying anyone's "official story." Just because I don't believe your conspiracy stories doesn't mean I'm a cheney buttbot.

Thank you, because this is too big an issue to be swept under the rug as a battle between Cheney Buttbots and Conspiracy Tin Foil Heads.

I feel the need to recommend this article, which expresses my frustration so well.

"At this point in time, many, if not most Americans know that the men and women in the Bush White House clearly and deliberately LIED to them, both by omission and commission about:

- The Bush connection to the bin Laden family.

- Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11

- The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11

- The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars

- A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror

- Regular, politically timed terror alerts

- Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11

- WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General

- Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD

- Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda

- Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors

- Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace

- Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform

- Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time

- Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq

- The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue

- The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch

- The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire

- Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens

- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan

- Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture

- Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative

- White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors…

There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea.

So, after becoming aware of lie after lie after lie by Bushco, why would anyone in his or her right mind FULLY EMBRACE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT A SINGLE QUESTION? Why would anyone in the United Sates of America conclude that the official version of the most important event in recent American history AS TOLD BY PROVEN LIARS is true?"

You listed a bunch of things there MV. None of which have anything to do with the evidence related to the nature of the 9/11 attacks. Some of us prefer to make judgements based on the evidence.

Seventied it!

MV, you're equating the "official story" with something Bush has said, it looks like to me, which doesn't seem right. While the bushies managed the message during that time, many of the agencies that investigated, cleaned up and analyzed data and wreckage hadn't been coopted by Bushbots yet. And from what I'm seeing, here and elsewhere, the only ones falling for the entire story coming from the white house are the Bushbots, so what's the problem? Preaching to the choir on the pile o' lies these guys have told us.

BTW, this "unavailability" of Delta and ranger assets for use in Afghanistan and the rest of the theatre (i.e. Pakistan) is EXACTLY what Centcom CinC Fallon was bitching about when he repeatedly tore Gen Pet several new assholes and informed Nero jr of what a sensible Centcom strategy would be (hint: it ain't the "surge").

Pity he was talking to zombies.

You listed a bunch of things there MV. None of which have anything to do with the evidence related to the nature of the 9/11 attacks.

Objection! I think the list goes a long way to illustrate the character of the administration in question. It also establishes motive, as many of the incidents on that list could not have been possible without the kickstart that 9/11 gave to the administration.

While the bushies managed the message during that time, many of the agencies that investigated, cleaned up and analyzed data and wreckage hadn't been coopted by Bushbots yet.

Now who's being naive, Scully? 8)

Which 9/11 investigative agencies don't answer to the President? The FBI? The CIA? NORAD? The FAA?

And as for the clean up, who controlled the crime scene? What was done with the evidence?

Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.

The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Whatev, dude. You want to believe; no amount of evidence is going to make you stop believing. We've come full circle and now I'm bored. Have fun, though.

Objection! I think the list goes a long way to illustrate the character of the administration in question.

And what of the character of the man who actually has claimed credit for the attacks, Osama bin Laden?

It also establishes motive, as many of the incidents on that list could not have been possible without the kickstart that 9/11 gave to the administration.

Osama bin Laden's objectives were also greatly served by the success of the attacks.

My point remains. None of what you listed goes directly to tying the administration of George Bush to the planning and execution of the attacks.

...about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined...

Which means that 20% of the steel was examined? And no one found anything unexpected. And don't quote any Steve Jones crap. The man is a quack. Not quite sure what one would expect to find by examining every piece. Sorry. The "demolition charges" theories have so many holes in them they aren't really worth addressing.

snark, I hate to once again beat a dead horse, and I do respect your professional opinion, but how do explain the clip from this video http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc-people-hanging-photo5-5d-right-800h.jpg.

There is no way that is the exit spray from jet fuel, or bits of large airliner. That is timed, linear explosion, just as the demolition experts have said it was. And this is the last stupid comment I'm going to make on the subject, because the truth, whatever it may be, will not be released until 25 years after Bush gets the chuck.

I don't know about you, but I would have been overcooked at the crematorium by several years by then...

tempus,

Your link doesn't work.

And to answer your earlier question, 63 of the 64 people on board the plane that hit the Pentagon's remains were identified in the wreckage. Numerous personal affects were returned to family members including rings and in at least on instance a luggage tag. Of all things that I would expect not to survive an intense long lasting fire high up on the list would be luggage full of clothing and plane seats made of aluminum and fabric. Why would the fact that those things burned surprise you?

I don't know snark. That sort of debris just usually does. I hope I haven't pissed you off as well over a silly, and undoable discussion. That was definitely not the idea.

I'm not pissed off. But the link you pasted doesn't work. And you asked why no bodies were recovered at the Pentagon when, in fact, almost all of the victims were identified. A simple search reveals this.

Post a link that works to the thing you want me to see and I'll look at it.

"63 of 64 people....were identified in the wreckage"

Good Christ, everyone, that's game, set, match!!

Or were the pulverized bodies brought in "after regular business hours"?

I don't know snark. That sort of debris just usually does.

How many 757's have crashed at 400 miles an hour into reinforced concrete buildings before? And then been engulfed in flames for several hours?

snark maybe this will work..

Snark:

1. Obtain a stop watch.

2. Start the stop watch when the kink forms in the penthouse of WTC7.

3. Stop the stop watch when the roof disappears into the rubble.

4. You will see that approx. 6.5 seconds have elapsed.

5. Understand that freefall rate in a vacuum can be calculatied using this formula: time equals the square root of two times the distance to fall divided by the acceleration of gravity (g).

6. Plugging in the appropriate numbers for the hieght of the penthouse, one comes up with 6.3 seconds.

7. Discounting air resistance, WTC7 collapsed at free fall rate.

I don't give a rats ass what Popular Mechanics says...I can conclude that for this reality to happen, all supporting structures must necessarily be eliminated ahead of the collapse wave. This can only be accounted for by actively blowing the support collumns.

Get it?

brisa, like several other buildings in the WTC complex #7 was badly damaged from all the large chunks of debris that flew out in the collapses of the North and South Towers. Unlike the other buildings, a fire broke out in #7 and there was no way to control it. After several hours, it collapsed in the same fashion as the other two. Took longer because it didn't get same huge initial jolt and intense heat.

The Deustchebank building that has been inhabitable since that day remains a demolition nightmare. If controlled demolition were so easy for these buildings; wonder why they haven't considered that an option?

The only conclusion that can be drawn, in all honesty, after visiting most of the links that don't work and after ignoring this thread for a full day, is that NO ONE has real knowledge of what happened in any of the events.

Certainty is delusional, no matter how happy you may be with it. Get over yourselves!

brisa,

Hate to break it to you but you think what you're presenting here is science but it's not. You know how to calculate the numbers you need to know but you don't have actual real data to use.

Stop the stop watch when the roof disappears into the rubble.

At what height does the roof disappear into the rubble? Exactly? You have no way of knowing the exact distances involved. And that means your numbers are meaningless. And we're using a stop watch and timing a videotape of the collapse? Oh how very accurate. But I like the bit about discounting air resistance. Makes the whole thing sound so very sensible. Please, tell me what the effect of air resistance is on the mass of a falling office building of the height involved here. And I'd be willing to bet that for the structure involved the effect of resistance due to air would be much smaller than the interval in which your fingers could push the button on the stop watch twice to stop and start it.

...WTC7 collapsed at free fall rate.

But your own numbers don't show that. You timed it at 6.5 seconds. But freefall, according to you would happen in 6.3 seconds. It actually, by your crude measurements, fell 3% slower than freefall. And since you only timed it until the roof disapeared into the rubble one can assume that the distance it fell was less than the total height of the building since the rubble below would have kept the roof from striking the ground. Did you factor that into your calculations? I didn't see it indicated anywhere. So the fall rate would again be even slower than freefall.

I don't give a rats ass what Popular Mechanics says...

Neither do I.

I can conclude that for this reality to happen, all supporting structures must necessarily be eliminated ahead of the collapse wave.

Unfortunately you seem to have taken some liberties with reality. But that's not hard to do when you try to make the evidence fit a pre-conclusion.

This can only be accounted for by actively blowing the support collumns.

For which there is no evidence other than you and your stop watch.

Get it?

Yup. You don't really have anywhere near the quality of data you would need to reasonably reach the conclusions you reached.

Get over yourselves!

Yeah, calling Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and each other for that matter, silly names is much more worthwhile.

If you don't like it just keep on ignoring it.

tempus,

That's a photo of people hanging out the windows of the WTC towers. Sorry to be frank but, so what? What is this supposed to show? Are you telling me you think the smoke in the picture is from demolition charges? I sure hope not.

Get over yourselves!

Yeah, calling Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and each other for that matter, silly names is much more worthwhile.

Snark, are you responding to my posts? I just want to know because that comeback certainly doesn't seem to have the slightest relationship to anything I've posted, ever on this website.

DeminNewJ,

No, not a direct reference to your comments. Sorry to give that impression. Just that you haven't seemed compelled to complain about the sophomoric name calling so why go out of your way to complain about people having a give and take about 9/11?

Thanks for clearing that up. I haven't complained about what I completely agree is sophomoric name calling, especially the Christopher jihad on Iamcoyote because I try not to get involved in personal snits.

I suppose I over-reacted to the "give and take" about 9/11 events because I don't think we've been presented with adequate evidence to make any final conclusions. I may have been guilty of the same kind of "hasty judgment" that I deplore in the blogosphere, generally. Anyone who is confident in their level of information regarding the happenings on that fateful day is depending on the reports of others, who may or may not be reliable. I just don't want anyone to be certain about what happened, because I don't believe the whole truth has been presented.