This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The NSA’s “Lone Wolf” Justification for Mass Spying Is B.S.

George Washington's picture




 

Bonus:

General Electric Knew Its Reactor Design Was Unsafe … So Why Isn’t GE Getting Any Heat for Fukushima?

The NSA’s main justification for Constitution-shredding mass surveillance on all Americans is 9/11.

In reality:

  • American presidents agree
  • The chairs of the 9/11 Commission say that the spying has gone way too far (and that the Director of National Intelligence should be prosecuted for lying about the spying program)
  • Top officials say that the claim that the government could only have stopped the attacks if it had been able to spy on Americans is wholly false

But we want to focus on another angle:  the unspoken assumption by the NSA that we need mass surveillance because “lone wolf” terrorists don’t leave as many red flags as governments, so the NSA has to spy on everyone to find the needle in the haystack.

But this is nonsense. The 9/11 hijackers were not lone wolves.

The former Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, outside adviser to the CIA, and Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – says:

I have personally talked to the other cochair of the Congressional Joint Inquiry, a man who was a very distinguished congressman and, later, director of the CIA [Porter Goss], I have talked to the two chairs of the … 9/11 Commission, asking them, what do you think were the prospects of these 19 people being able to plan, practice, and execute the complicated plot that was 9/11 without any external support?

 

All three of them used almost the same word: “Implausible”. That it is implausible that that could have been the case.

 

Yet that has now become the conventional wisdom to the aggressive exclusion of other alternatives.

 

Indeed, it is pretty clear that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror … although people argue about which state or states were responsible (we personally believe that at least two allied governments were involved. Zero Hedge readers:  Which governments do YOU think were involved?).

Indeed, Graham – unlike with 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey – said in sworn declarations that the Saudi is linked to the 9/11 attacks.  They’re calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

An FBI report implicates the Saudi government.

And many other top U.S. counter-terrorism officials say that the government’s explanation of the 9/11 hijackers being “lone wolves” connected only to Al Qaeda is ridiculous. See this and this.

If this sounds implausible,  remember that Saudi Prince Bandar – head of Saudi intelligence – helped to arm the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and is now arming Al Qaeda in Syria. (Background).   Respected financial writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that Prince Bandar admitted that Saudi Arabia carries out false flag terror.

Indeed, the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 found that the Saudi government supported the 9/11 attacks,  but the Bush administration classified the 28 pages of the report which discussed the Saudis.

Bipartisan Bill to Publicly Release Report on Saudi Involvement In 9/11

A bipartisan bill – introduced by  congressmen Walter B. Jones (Republican from North Carolina) and Stephen Lynch (Democrat from Massachusetts)  would declassify the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry which implicate the Saudi government.

Some assume that passage of the bill is assured …

But both the Bush and Obama administrations have fought to keep Saudi involvement under wraps for more than 10 years.

Remember, the U.S. government allowed members of Bin Laden’s family – and other suspicious Saudis – hop on airplanes and leave the country right after 9/11 without even interviewing them, even though air traffic was grounded for everyone else.

Additionally, a Saudi FBI informant hosted and rented a room to Mihdhar and another 9/11 hijacker in 2000.

Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

As the New York Times notes:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

 

In his book “Intelligence Matters,” Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said “the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.” On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter “a smoking gun” and said, “The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House.”

The government obstructed the 9/11 Commission in every way possible.  During both the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission investigation, government “minders” intimidated witnesses and obstructed the investigation.

Obama has been no better.  Obama’s Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the lawsuit brought by the families of victims killed in the 9/11 attacks against Saudi Arabia should be thrown out of court (it was).

And Graham said that he’s lobbied Obama for years to release the 28 pages and to reopen the investigation, but Obama has refused.  The former Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and 9/11 investigator has even resorted to filing Freedom of Information requests to obtain information, but the Obama administration is still stonewalling:

Graham said that like the 28 pages in the 9/11 inquiry, the Sarasota case is being “covered up” by U.S. intelligence. Graham has been fighting to get the FBI to release the details of this investigation with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and litigation. But so far the bureau has stalled and stonewalled, he said.

Still Urgent Today

Ancient history, you say?

Graham notes:

Although it’s been more than a decade ago when this horrific event occurred, I think [the questions of who supported the attacks] have real consequences to U.S. actions today.

For example, the U.S. might not want to support – let alone launch joint military adventure alongside – a regime which supported the 9/11 hijackers.

As Graham told told PBS last year:

[Question]: Senator Graham, are there elements in this report, which are classified that Americans should know about but can’t?

 

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes … I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

 

I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

 

To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

 

[Question]: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

 

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing — although that was part of it — by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

 

[Question]: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you’re talking about?

 

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it’s turned over to the archives, but that’s 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it’s relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

And – most importantly – if the entire mass spying program is based on the “lone wolf” theory of 9/11, it is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Postscript:  Ironically, the U.S. government has in the past alleged state sponsorship of 9/11 when it suited its purposes.  Specifically, people may not remember now, but – at the time – the supposed Iraqi state sponsorship of 9/11 was at least as important a justification for the Iraq war as the alleged weapons of mass destruction.  This claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even – long after they alleged such a link – Bush and Cheney themselves.  But 70% of the American public believed it at the time, and 85% of U.S. troops believed the U.S. mission in Iraq was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.”

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 12/13/2013 - 19:48 | 4245156 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Well, to start, till 9/11, no steel skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire.  They're designed  to make that impossible."

 

LOL.  Titanic was designed to make it "impossible" to sink.  It went down in two hours or so after hitting an iceberg. 

The no steel skyscraper mantra is proof of nothing.

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 15:11 | 4246743 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you're logic needs improvement

Planes and fires have both "attacked" buildings in the past without this result

the Titanic comparison is a sinker 

Sun, 12/15/2013 - 13:45 | 4245454 Ocean22
Ocean22's picture

It may not be conclusive proof but its a damb good place to start. Let me see..... No buildings ever fall, then 3 in one day. Ummmm. Yup, your right, nothing to see here... move along

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 16:57 | 4244517 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

And the WTC7 building just happened to collapse in a symmetrical debris pile despite not being hit by any planes?  And its rate of descent as timed by video footage was close to the free fall rate?  (that's the rate at which a solid object like a brick would take to reach the ground).

There's only one way you can get a symmetrical debris pile and a collapse rate at the inertia free  fall rate (I hope you understand momentum transfer and why only a timed demolition of each floor can result in the top floor reaching the ground at the free fall rate but the basic idea is that any all floors below the top one have to be "removed" to prevent energy transfer from slowing the descent)  There's only one way to do that:  first take out flooor 1, then 2, then floor n etc.  Only a timed explosion of the supports for each floor can do that.

As a scientist I find it puzzlying that a steel column can collapse from a jet fuel fire whose temperature is 500 degree lower than the melting temperature of the steel.  Sufficient to melt aluminum but not steel.   Critical thinking is very useful, you might want to try it sometime.

Here's something else to puzzle over.  The weight of the planes was mainly on one side of building.  Yet the debris pile was symmetrical?  Try to acheive that in any model of forces you might construct.  You have to take out the columns symmetrically in both time and space to get a symmetrical debris pile.  The planes were a distraction.  Correlation is not causation.   

 

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 17:44 | 4244737 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"And the WTC7 building just happened to collapse in a symmetrical debris pile despite not being hit by any planes?  And its rate of descent as timed by video footage was close to the free fall rate?  (that's the rate at which a solid object like a brick would take to reach the ground)."

 

WTC7 happened to be struck by debris falling from the collapse of WTC1.  Otherwise it would still have been standing at the end of the day.

Rate of descent is a bogus argument.  It doesn't prove controlled demolition.

"As a scientist I find it puzzlying that a steel column can collapse from a jet fuel fire whose temperature is 500 degree lower than the melting temperature of the steel."

 

As a scientist you shouldn't find it puzzling, as it wasn't a jet fuel fire for the duration of the time WTC 1 and 2 remained standing.  The contents of the building was the source of heat and as can be seen in the video, flames were floor to ceiling and beyond at times.  The fire was hot enough to weaken the steel, which a scientist would acknowledge.  The weakened steel eventually lead to a catastrophic collapse of the Towers.

 

"Here's something else to puzzle over.  The weight of the planes was mainly on one side of building.  Yet the debris pile was symmetrical?"?

Why are you puzzling?  The debris pile was not symmetrical, as the top of WTC2 leaned over to the east as it fell. The weight of the planes had no bearing on manner in which the Towers collapsed, considering the planes disintegrated as they careened through the Towers.

The floors themselves were contained inside the exterior walls of the Towers, as they pancaked down upon each other, before exterior column sections fell away.  A scientist would be able to see that and understand that just from looking at the video. 

 

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 21:53 | 4245491 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"Rate of descent is a bogus argument"   - that one wins. You're saying the speed of gravity is irrelevant to controlled demolition?   

 

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 17:50 | 4244695 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

J.C.

The Salomon Brothers (Bldg 7) aside which has no equal in the persona non grata department for the non believers.

To add to your detailed summary, which is excellent by the way, NIST committed the most egregious act of scientifc fraud when they had no explanation in their investigative "findings" for the onset of collapse to the Towers 80,000 tons of structural steel below the points of impact of the 350 ton aircrafts.  No explanations from John Gross about the pools of molten steel that burned hot for more than 3 months which he deliberately ignored when asked to speak to that phenomena?

How any self respecting scientist or engineer can embrace a report that says we only looked at the relevant areas of impact which "initiated the onset of collapse", but we can't tell you about the healthy uncompromised structure below it and why it lost all of it's potential energy is telling?

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 17:53 | 4244771 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"No explanations from John Gross about the pools of molten steel that burned hot for more than 3 months which he deliberately ignored when asked to speak to that phenomena?"

 

Where are the phhotographs of molten steel?

 

"To add to your detailed summary, which is excellent by the way, NIST committed the most egregious act of scientifc fraud when they had no explanation in their investigative "findings" for the onset of collapse to the Towers 80,000 tons of structural steel below the points of impact of the 350 ton aircrafts."

 

The onset of collapse was in the fire zone.  It is rather obvious that fire was action which caused the collapse, regardless whether NIST was able to figure out he exact sequence of failure which lead to a natual collapse of the Towers.

 

 

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 00:51 | 4245873 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

If you guys needs any help finding stuff on that link you just let me know!

 

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 18:08 | 4247022 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

nice comments on your link:

"Architect, Richard Gage said last night on “Coast to Coast AM” (listen here) 80-90% of the jet fuel burned OUTSIDE of the second tower that was hit (the first to collapse). And the fuel that remained inside the building only burned for about 10 minutes. The rest of the fires were basic office fires (paper, etc.) that would last in each office for only about 20 minutes.

Loose quote:

~”80-90% of the fuel burned up outside of the building. And the rest of the fuel burned up within 10 minutes. … After that we have normal office fires. … There is only enough fuel in an office to allow an area to burn for about 20 minutes.”

And these fires can only reach about 1400 degrees F in the most ideal conditions. The temps were probably closer to the 1000 degree F mark, which is less than 1/3 of that needed to even begin to melt steel.

Steel acts like a heat sink, which is one reason why steel buildings have never before collapsed from fire, and these didn’t, either.

Also, one of the Bush brothers was part of the security team for the towers.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 18:04 | 4244814 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

Follow my responses to 'sosoome' They are embedded.

Just like NIST, keep ignoring it and cross your fingers that with time and attrition people will forget and that you won't get thrown in prison one day for the worst fraud ever committed.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 18:30 | 4244907 sosoome
sosoome's picture

You are ignoring structural evidence. It must mean you don't have any. You going to court with that?  

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 18:38 | 4244932 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

That's not you John is it?...

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 12:25 | 4246442 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

doing a great job "son"  Notice when he's countered with hard evidence (like picture of molten steel), he falls back to another subject...like debris, the very shit criminally hauled away 

I think it was Cog Dis who said this event is "the litmus test."

I have come to conclude that more than the attack, it is the covering up, the systemic, bipartisan, decade long covering, the energy and murder, and a million other things that tell us more about our "leaders" and where they are taking us

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 19:56 | 4247178 sosoome
sosoome's picture

And you too are ignoring the fact tons of structural evidence says the buildings broke apart at their connectors. If you can't produce structural evidence to overcome that fact, you have no case for CD. None of the other things you bring to the table matter.

 

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 20:45 | 4247246 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

your transparent and handicapped effort to prove your case with photographs alone and ignoring all other principles and evidence including your failure to explain te criminal removal of the evidence for true examination tell the true story

Sun, 12/15/2013 - 03:23 | 4247852 sosoome
sosoome's picture

As for the photographic evidence (you must not read well for there is much more than just photo evidence), after I show it all to the grand jury, you will either have to produce solid photo evidence to back your claim, or you will have to convince them they did not see what I just showed them. Good luck with that.

Sun, 12/15/2013 - 10:42 | 4248092 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you're right  "there is much more than just photo evidence"







"This is how it's been since day one...and this is six weeks later. As we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter - it's probably 1500 degrees."


"Out on the rubble it's still, I believe, 1,100 degrees. The guys boots just melt within a few hours."


Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert, on the jet fuel fires which burned in the WTC buildings:


"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."  [Firehouse.com]


Molten steel did not exist in the WTC buildings prior to the collapses, but...


Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]


One of the more unusual artefacts to emerge from the rubble is this rock-like object which has come to be known as "the meteorite". "This is a fused element of molten steel and concrete all fused by the heat into one single element."


WMV video download (376kB) 


?


?


"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]








Video documenting nine explosions at the base of WTC 2 prior to its collapse.

WMV video dowenload (2.8 MB)






When the rescue team reached an area directly in front of Tower Two, Antonio said he'd take over the equipment cart Will had pushed from Building 5. ... The team moved ahead. ... Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street. [bowhunter.com]








As Ron DiFrancesco ran away [from WTC 2] he was hit by a fireball ... he was probably the last person out alive. "I saw the fireball and heard a loud noise. That's all I remember..."


All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow ... I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame..."


WMV video download (392kB)







Same reporter: "I hear simultaneously this roar and see what appears to be a gigantic fireball rising up at ground level . . . I remember seeing this giant ball of fire come out of the earth as I heard this roar" [Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11 - P 239]
Sun, 12/15/2013 - 03:18 | 4247841 sosoome
sosoome's picture

You can get all your poohbahs together and I'll get mine to argue over all the principles and circumstantial evidence and an incessant argument is what you will get. Just look at all the back and forth on YT videos which cover every one of the circumstantial items you bring up.  It will never be resolved arguing over those issues. The structural evidence is the only thing which will resolve the case. You find solid structural evidence of cut up columns and you have a case. Til then you are trumped by the structural evidence alone, which means your circumstantial evidence is moot.

Sun, 12/15/2013 - 02:05 | 4247788 sosoome
sosoome's picture

I have ignored nothing. It all boils down to the structural remains. At this point they prove the buildings broke apart at their connectors. You have to overcome that. So far, you haven't.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 17:06 | 4244572 sosoome
sosoome's picture

In order to think critically, the facts have to be straight. Yours are not. There was nothing symmetrical about any of the collapses for starters. "There's only one way to do that..." is another. That actually is a classic sign of a con; eliminate all other possibility so the dupes are led to your conclusion. I rid myself of the same sources you are regurgitating and looked for myself...quite a different story emerged than the one told by AE etal.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 17:39 | 4244721 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

"There was nothing symmetrical about any of the collapses for starters"...

sosoome

Please elaborate?  Please tell us more on the substantial body of information that you possess that what we in fact witnessed is something other than "symmetrical"?

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 18:09 | 4244826 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"There was nothing symmetrical about any of the collapses for starters"...

sosoome

Please elaborate?  Please tell us more on the substantial body of information that you possess that what we in fact witnessed is something other than "symmetrical"?

 

Just look at the videos.  The top 30 floors of WTC2 leaned over to the east.  Nothing symmetrical about that.

 

In WTC7, floors below the east Penthouse collapsed, causing the east Penthouse to cave in.  Nothing symmetrical about that either.

The east end of WTC7 twisted as it fell and the roof line was bowed in toward the east end  Nothing symmetrical about that either.

 

Except that WTC7 was struck by debris from that collapsing WTC1, which resulted in fires, WTC7 would have been standing at the end of the day. 

 

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 21:49 | 4245481 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

that's the fastest "asymmetry" I've ever seen

amazing how it makes the BBC see the future

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 18:20 | 4244864 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Finally I've met another with eyes!

Yes, the building bowed inward, which at some angles appears to be the roofline sinking, thus the infamous "kink".

The north wall actually broke at that bow as it split in two.

Thank you for your contribution moneybots

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 00:45 | 4245866 DavidPierre
DavidPierre's picture
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 17:58 | 4244781 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Both of the Twin Tower tops fell to the side; South tower to the east and slightly south, and the North tower to the south. In both cases, large sections of perimeter wall stood at the bottom on the opposite side to which the tops fell. Those are asymmetrical collapses.

7WTC did not fall straight down. The first visible move of the perimeter walls was a shift to the east, which was more of a twisting motion, confirmed by the east portion of the building falling into Fiterman Hall across the street to the north, and the west sector falling across Vesey St to the south. Not symmetrical. The fact it's first move was lateral is proof lower support was not suddenly removed to initiate collapse.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 21:52 | 4245495 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

Symmetrical enough. They were two of the world's tallest buildings. Of course they aren't going to fall perfectly symmetrical, but they for damn sure didn't topple over.

At least you're getting paid to spew this nonsense.

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 12:16 | 4246428 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

good thing the payment is not tied to the convince rate

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 22:14 | 4245542 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Fine. I don't care one way or the other. Just produce the structural remains which show cut members. I looked, but could find none. All I could find is tons and tons of structural remains showing they broke apart at their connectors. 

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 00:48 | 4245869 DavidPierre
Fri, 12/13/2013 - 18:13 | 4244840 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

You'll have to do better than that my friend.

What peer reviewed work are you referring to? And if it's your own please let us have a look? 

By the way I don't see anyone at NIST refuting what Niels Harrit, Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan have documented?

Have you?

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 18:29 | 4244900 sosoome
sosoome's picture

All you have to do is look with unbiased eyes. If you are relying on the work of others, you are ripe for bias. All I described is exactly what is shown in readily available video and photos.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 21:49 | 4245482 Ocean22
Ocean22's picture

Unbiased eyes? Excuse me?! There is no way on Gods green earth that those buildings collapsed like that from two planes, some fuel and some burning desks. Horse shit. You guys are mentally ill if you believe that. One needs no engineering education ( beyond common sense) to see that collapse was engineered. Those were the most unnatural "collapses" I have ever seen.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 22:09 | 4245531 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Then the structural evidence will confirm your suspicions. It doesn't. It shows quite the opposite. If it is so clear to you, as it was to me at one time, spend the hours I have looking for the structural evidence. It should be easy to find.

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 10:15 | 4246270 blindman
blindman's picture

shipped to china. they must have melted it
down by now.

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 01:00 | 4245892 DavidPierre
DavidPierre's picture

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 18:50 | 4244977 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

"All you have to do is look with unbiased eyes. If you are relying on the work of others, you are ripe for bias."...

So as long as you are saying the collapse was "other than symmetrical"... You didn't elaborate on the issue very clearly on near free fall accceleration for all 3 buildings that accompanies the asymmetrical theory of yours?

Just where did all of the supporting columns go along with the perimiter walls in that asymmetrical collapse you're referring to?

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 19:10 | 4245045 sosoome
sosoome's picture

It's becoming clearer and clearer you have not studied the collpses visually. Even Bubba could figure out there was no free fall of the towers simply due to the first steel to fall up top hit the ground way ahead of the collapse zone. 

Part of 7 was close to free fall if all you are measuring is the visible perimeter wall collapse, but not at onset. The structural evidence suggests the perimeter walls broke around the 8th to 12th floors in a stairstep fashion. If they buckled, meaning they were out of plum, then broke, there would be little if any resistance for about 10 floors.

Asymmetrical collapse is fact, not theory.

Where did the supporting columns go? Had you done any study, you would know considerable heighths of both cores remained standing, even though briefly, after everything else collapsed. You would also know the steel thickness tappered upward. Upper, thinner steel was splayed apart, and as the jumbled mass met more resistance of the heavier steel, it went around the cores. Those columns were found on top of the piles, as they were the last to fall.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 19:46 | 4245142 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

"Where did the supporting columns go? Had you done any study, you would know considerable heighths of both cores remained standing, even though briefly, after everything else collapsed"...

sosoome

I provided you with another "^ arrow" with your latest response.   I've come to the conclusion that you certainly are NOT an architect, engineer nor a .gov -although I think the guys in Washington might be getting desperate enough to where you would fit in.

For the record.  My "bias" will always stand with a group of professional architects and engineers who build them for a living and build them so well in fact that no fire has ever brought a steel skyscraper to the ground like we witnessed three times on 9/11/2001 based on it's safety codes and redundancies.  I might add that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707 which the Federal Government like the evidence of the molten steel simply ignores.

I might also add again that the peer reviewed work they have collectively prepared and submitted to the Federal Government within the last 8 years has still gone unchallenged with no accompanying material support to buttress what NIST prepared belatedly following the flood of FOIA requests that followed the "9/11 Commission Report" and that started the independent investigative organization(s) committed to getting to the truth on a crime that has irreparably changed our lives for the worse.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 20:15 | 4245245 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"For the record.  My "bias" will always stand with a group of professional architects and engineers who build them for a living and build them so well in fact that no fire has ever brought a steel skyscraper to the ground like we witnessed three times on 9/11/2001 based on it's safety codes and redundancies."

 

You shouldn't have a bias.  OBJECTIVITY.  Architects and engineers contacted by the New York Times immediately after 9/11 did not say that it was impossible for fire to have been the cause of the collapse.

 

No fire/skyscraper, is nothing more than a mantra.  No near fully fuel laden 767 had ever flown into a skyscraper prior to 9/11.  No skyscraper was of the tube design that the Towers were. 

Safety codes and redundancies are also just a mantra, which has no application to the actual effect of fire on each of the three buildings and the particular fact that fire was totally uncontrolled in all three buildings which collapsed.

 

"I might add that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707 which the Federal Government like the evidence of the molten steel simply ignores."

 

The Towers did withstand the collision with 767's, they didn't withstand the fires which ensued.  What evidence of molten steel?  Where are the photos?

 

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 01:09 | 4245900 Son of Captain Nemo
Fri, 12/13/2013 - 21:46 | 4245472 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

again making the immediate haul out of the evidence which was illegal what kind of evidence for which side. Why would the government do that?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy_jMrJGF9M 

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html

then there's the BS denial  (circumstantial evidence in and of itself)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVFwkAMd2-k 

 

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 20:12 | 4245233 sosoome
sosoome's picture

All those proffessional architects and engineers should easily be able to identify the structural remains which confirm the buildings were artificially dismembered. Then there would be no doubt. As it is, the overwheming amount of structural evidence says CD didn't happen. I can't help that fact, nor do I have a dog in this fight. It is simply a fact which cannot be ignored.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 21:32 | 4245439 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

and your point argues for or against thermite?  There are indeed pictures of interesing angles on bottom cores sticking out at the bottom (not to mention the extremely hot pile at the bottom that lasted for...weeks.   More "circumstantial" evidence

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 21:51 | 4245492 sosoome
sosoome's picture

All of those angle cuts have been shown to be clean up cuts. On top of that, there are no slide marks on those cuts, which should tip anyone off that they were not the result of CD. And of course, the location of those cuts, at the bottom, is not at all cosistant with the way the buildings fell.

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 22:52 | 4245641 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

lets leave the cuts and the criminal haul away for now, how about the month of molten

the incredibly small debris, dust like and incredibly small pile those incredibly large building amounted to when it was over - the fire did that, the structural collapse?

Fri, 12/13/2013 - 23:16 | 4245694 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Can you establish that controlled demolitions typically produce pockets of extreme heat below the pile and or molten steel? Talk to any landfill operator to find out how long fires can burn underground.

As for the debris, there were mountains of gnarled debris at the base of each tower. It shows what a massive, churning, grinding machine it was which came down through those tubes. Have you bothered to actually study photos of the debris piles? Saying they were incredibly small suggests you have not.

Sat, 12/14/2013 - 12:14 | 4246419 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"Can you establish that controlled demolitions typically produce pockets of extreme heat below the pile and or molten steel?"

your first sentence makes no sense...like much of your argument.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!