B-b-b-b-but the chicken wire and the bricks!

Haha, well you got me... unless the invisible plane missles were made of bricks and chicken wire! Check and mate!

I can't download pdf. What does "pulled" refer to exactly? Does it explain what happened to the cores? Does it explain the molten metal found in the rubble? Does it explain why the construction manager said that each tower could withstand two plane attacks?

Pulled...

We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment {excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

You can read it here, it isn't pdf.

It is interesting on many levels. I found a lot of bs there. I wonder why they wouldn't touch any of the government reports. I like how they discount the witnesses. Nice touch!

Well, witnesses aren't always reliable, I'm sure you know. Can you distinguish the difference between a loud boom, say... the weight of the floors falling on the rest of the building, and an explosion? You have to consider that mostly everything you read about this is BS, conjecture, or worse... lies.

I'd say William Rodriguez knew the difference since he worked in the building duirng the '93 attack. Sure, some people could be lying but who has more motivation to lie? Citizens of government officials.

 

Here's the simple fact about the WTC: We will never know. Why? No physical evidence to examine. Here's something I do know. There are hundreds of other leads to follow that don't even involve the WTC.

 

There doesn't have to be explosives involved to show that this was an inside job. 

Sorry, that was supposed to citizens or government officials.

From your Big Brother protectors:

 

ASSERTION #6

"Debris removed from Ground Zero - particularly the large steel columns from towers #1 and 2 - were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent examination or scrutiny."
PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Your friends don't read much...

 

 

Removal of the Steel: For one thing, the steel from the buildings was quickly removed before it could be properly examined,[48] with virtually all of it being sold to scrap dealers, who put most of it on ships to Asia.[49] Generally, removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is a federal offense. But in this case, federal officials facilitated the removal.[50]

This removal evoked protest. On Christmas day, 2001, the New York Times said: “The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known.”[51] The next week, Fire Engineering magazine said: “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence (Brannigan, Corbett, and Dunn, 2002). . . . The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately” (Manning, 2002).

However, Mayor Bloomberg, defending the decision to dispose of the steel, said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do.[52] Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."[53] But that is not true. An examination of the steel could have revealed whether it had been cut by explosives.

     This removal of an unprecedented amount of material from a crime scene suggests that an unprecedented crime was being covered up.[54]

To me, the "removal of an unprecedented amount of material from a crime scene" suggests that they had millions of tons of steel that they didn't want to just have laying around forever.

 

But even if they did move it quickly, that doesn't refute the other evidence put forth (not just by this report, either) that refutes the notion of an inside demolition job being used to bring down the towers.

 

I hope you're basing your objections to the assessment that the towers weren't brought down demolition style on more than just that one paragraph about steel removal.

Of course, but I'm not going to fill this spot with a bunch of stuff that no one is going to read anyway. I posted one item to make my point. The point being that these people either didn't search for the information or they purposely ignored it. 

But it wasn't explosives. There is way too much evidence, verifiable evidence against explosives.

And besides, Protec was there. And the researched it. They did footwork. They have background in demolition... you can't say these things about everyone. This isn't politics.

This isn't politics?

 

I strongly disagree!

 

That single event is the cause of most of the problems we face today. I'm not saying that these people have political connections. I simply pointed out that there is a lot of evidence contrary to assertion 6. You might try picking up some books on this subject instead of sifting through websites.

Yes, because the book Popular Mechanics put out that reaches the same conclusions these guys made (i.e.: The World Trade Center wasn't brought down by explosives) isn't a credible source. And the 9/11 Truth Movement certainly doesn't do Web site sifting. That movement is Internet centered and driven, for crying out loud.

 

Jesse can correct me if I'm wrong; I think his statement "This isn't politics" wasn't trying to argue that the events of 9/11 and the different sides in the aftermath isn't a political issue, he's merely saying that these people aren't politicians and aren't trying to take sides politically.

How many issues did Popular Mechanics cover? How many did they ignore?

Jesse,

 

I'm proud of you for posting this.

 

Popular Mechanics published a very thorough rebuttal of this and other conspiracy claims from 9/11 and the Web site www.loosechangeguide.com seems to be a thorough rebuttal of the conspiracy theories put forth in the Loose Change "documentary".

 

Loose Change was neat to watch...for awhile. But finally it hit a point where I got skeptical enough to do some digging on my own. Nothing wrong with skepticism and asking tough questions, but sometimes the answers aren't the ones you'd like. You can accept it and move on or you can continue beating a dead horse.

 

I think the 9/11 "Truth" movement is merely refusing to believe that they weren't betrayed by a right-wing government and will go on believing what they want to believe, just like people still believe in the Loch Ness Monster. All of us have chosen to believe something we know probably isn't true...usually it just isn't something this gargantuan and important.

I think the 9/11 truth movement is extremely convincing. I watched part of loose change as well. It was late, some I didn't watch all of it. I decided to start looking at the "supposed Truth" versus the Rebuttals... and there is a lot of manipulation going on in the truth movement. I would like to start a site that gives a side-by-side comparison of the arguments

That would be a *lot* of work, but very interesting.

 

To be clear, I don't think the truth movement people are "unintelligent" or that being skeptical is a *bad* thing. I just, in this case, don't think the "truth movement" is willing to accept the truth.

Well, the truth movement is out to prove something. You won't see them backing down, because that would be weak. But I'd be more impressed with an attempt at a balanced view, and admitting when they are wrong. I haven't seen any retractions yet.

Me neither. Loose Change reacted to people pointing out errors in their documentary by saying they were going to leave them in to encourage people to ask questions and look for themselves. Umm, OK. But if their "enemies" made a mistake in their reporting they'd be on it like ugly on an ape screaming bloody murder.

 

We all have a hard time admitting when we are wrong on big issues. So in that respect I can understand their unwillingness to concede errors along the way...at the same time, I wish they'd be able to see that in behaving as they do they aren't making themselves any better than the types of people they are complaining about. You know, the people who are ridiculous enough to believe and defend the position that the government didn't dynamite the Twin Towers.

 

It's not the first time I've been dubbed "ridiculous."

 "But I'd be more impressed with an attempt at a balanced view, and admitting when they are wrong. I haven't seen any retractions yet."

 

That is flat out false!!

 

I posted an article on my 911northwoods blog by David Ray Griffin where he does just that. I know you visited that blog after I posted it. So, either you didn't completely read it or you are pulling a dubya. Which one is it?

I probably just didn't read it all. In that case, I'm impressed! I'm going to look for it now.

Pfft!

 

As if Loose Change is the only film on the subject. I could point you to many that are more thoroughly researched but you've already proven that you have made a choice on the matter.

 

Good comparison, 9/11 and the Loch Ness monster. Much like the Easter Bunny and hitler.

I invite you to list more material for me to look at. I'm completely serious.

 

You're right in one thing though, it will be very difficult for me to reach the conclusion that the American government (a slow, cumbersome, bulky institution) planned such an elaborate attack on its own people just so they could eventually get to Iraq and launch a war that has proven to be a terrible political move. And moreover that this same attack was pulled off without a single leak to the press and a single whistleblower. I mean, not even the media caught a sniff of the notion that something was up.

 

If our government can pull something like that off then we all should be nothing less than fully infuriated. Fightin' mad, even!

 

Instead, the notions defy common sense. After all, the Bush administration is too stupid to do anything...right? Come on, he choked on a pretzel and can barely tie his own shoes. How would they be smart enough and covert enough to pull off something as massive as attacking the Pentagon and the Twin Towers less than a year after a hotly contested election and an angry Democratic Party keeping close watch? It's a very tough sell to make.

 

I thought the "Bush is Hitler" comparison was the fashionable one to make. When did the Easter Bunny take his spot?

 

In all seriousness though, I am certainly open to looking at things that are more thoroughly researched than Loose Change. Loose Change was a nice piece of cinematography, but well-researched it was not.

Frist, it's more than just the Iraq war. We have had the clamp down on civil liberties and we now openly torture. All of which people would not accept without 9/11. I seriously doubt people would have accepted the Iraq war. Most people thought the war was justified and was just a good idea(myself included).

 

I know that Bush can barely tie his shoes and I have never claimed that he took part in any of it. I wouldn't be surprised if the neocons left him out of the loop completely. However, I cannot say the same for the rest of the gang. These people have been in government for a long time. Long enough for people to pick up on their dirty deeds. Some of our former Intelligence officials know exactly what type of people we have in the current administration. Try Ray McGovern or Wayne Madsen.

 

As far as whistleblowers go, sure there is no one who can say that they saw someone plant bombs. However, you do have the work of Sibel Edmonds to look at. She was working as a translator for either the CIA or the FBI. Her work was shut down and she was quieted. A judge or court has barred her from telling her story.

 

You can look at all the warnings that were given by foreign Intelligence agencies and by our own that were ignored. At some point you have to ask yourself why was it all ignored. Some people believe(especially those on the Left) that the government is too incompetent to pull off something like this. However, the CIA openly admits to overthrowing leaders of other countries and we know they torture people. Whatever can be done to others will eventually be done to us.

 

Besides, do you think the government is really incompetent? Some will point at the failure in Iraq. I will submit to you that Iraq is not a failure at all. Certain people have profited big time. Plus, other things have gone according to plan. One example is the building of permanent bases in Iraq. It was all planned out by the neocons in the Project for a New American Century. Their website is still up, go read it.

 

Was the Hurricane Katrina response due to incompetence? I think not. What really did the administration lose in the poor response? Nothing besides what little respect it had left. They simply did not care about the situation. They responded exactly the way they wanted to. No loss for them. They didn't lose their lives or homes.

 

Here are some better videos to check out:

9/11 Mysteries

Terrorstorm

9/11 Press for Truth(put together by the families of the victims)

9/11 Eyewitness(which gives you an excellent viewpoint to watch the attack on the towers and the following destruction. I don't necessarily buy the theories put forth by the video, but it still gives you a good vantage point.)

 

All of which can be viewed on your good friend, the internet.

 

Some good books are:

The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin

The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin

The 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson(This book offers no theories. It only draws from media resources which will at least show you that our government officials twisted their stories many times and that the hijackers got away with so much garbage that it seems they were being protected.)

The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinfromation and the Anatomy of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed(I just bought this one yesterday so I can't say much about it. What I have read so far deals with the Intelligence "failures".)

 

There was also a good conference that ran on C-SPAN once. It included Ray McGovern, David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan from UL and someone who I am forgetting because I saw it last summer. I'll see if I can find a link.

 

You see, most people do not offer up theories on 9/11. They just know that they haven't been told the whol truth about the matter. People want answers. I hope this helps you. Let me know if you have any questions so that I may help you find something.     

My mistake. Thompson's book is called The Terror Timeline. I didn't have it in front of me.

Thank you much, and thanks for pointing out that I've been overgeneralizing by labeling the 9/11 Truth Movement as simply as to suggest that they all believe the Towers were brought down demolition style or that a missile (not a jetliner) hit the Pentagon.

 

I don't even find it unfair to ask if the government used leverage from the attacks of 9/11 to get us into Iraq (although there were certainly other arguments made) but still there is a *big* difference between that and orchestrating the attacks so they can go to Iraq in the first place. 

 

To address your questions about the government's competence (or lack thereof): I think the government is filled with people who have good intentions but are terribly ineffective at performing what they set out to achieve.

 

I think the response to Hurricane Katrina *was* due to incompetence, but not just on the part of FEMA. Governor Blanco and New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin displayed plenty of incompetence in their handling of the situation, too. The difference is they were able to distract attention from it by passing the blame to the Bush Administration.

Haha, well it isn't a long read. It is a lot like the popular mechanics story. These guys are demolition experts giving their opinion of the likelyhood of 9/11 being a case of explosive demolition, concluding that it isn't. The reason I said they are credible... they were in Manhattan and Brooklyn at the time of 9/11... they had seismographs in the area, which can correlate with the more advanced seismographs...

Of course, it is all a load of crap because we are mislead sheep, but you have to believe something. Occam's Razor?

you know my feelings...people who think the gov't or some other agency did this purposely AND were just waiting for planes to crash into the towers are either nuts, crazy, insane, mean, very angry, or are just so full of bile they can't see or think straight