There appears to be an internal contradiction in your assertion. You have stated that you hold that the 9/11 attacks were carried out as an inside job. Then you stated that the US President, prior to the attacks, had fortified himself against the possibility of attack. This makes no sense. If the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated on the inside, what need would there be for the president to ensure that he was protected, being that there would be no thread to his person? It would make more sense to say that Bush knew the attacks would be carried out and therefore took extra safety precautions. This, however, is not the definition of "inside job".

Note that I didn't give away my opinion on this matter. Conspiracy is not my forte, and, I might add, that "doing research on the internet" is internally contradictory. When you researched certain things, or rather, knowledge claims made by certain sites, did you, in turn, check the sources cited by those sites? Or, perhaps more importantly, did you try and find a site which made a knowledge claim contradictory to the claim of the site you just researched, to judge who held the better argument?

Apart from that, I won't really get into conspiracy, because like I said, it is not my forte. Unless someone claims that a commercial aircraft cannot bring down a skyscraper (which is not correct). That's physics, which is my forte.

Are you saying you would like to believe that the Bush Administration is diabolically evil and can pull off huge coverups in the 24 hour news world where every little act they do is picked apart and dissected?

Can you not fathom that 19 men could plan and put into action flying planes into buildings?

Do you want to believe that this is a step into the direction of the new world order?

Do you want to believe that those planes could not physically cause a collapse of the world trade center?

Thats what it sounds like to me. Yes, I think truthers in general give way too much credit to the Bush Administration that they could pull something like this off. Its the idea that the government is bent on world domination and they are trying to keep us down. Ultimately this is a simple example of Occam's razor, nothing more.

If you are looking to come to a predetermined conclusion, and will only accept statements that support that conclusion, while rejecting all the evidence to the contrary, then of course 911 is an inside job...and Jesus is Lord...and....and...and?

Seriously, pick your poison. This is the exact same rationale certain theists apply to GOD. They discount all evidence to the contrary, and only accept evidence that will support their predetermined conclusions.

You believe 911 was an inside job because you would like it to be true, not because it necessarily is true.

 First, ever hear of counter-intelligence? You do realize that inconsistencies at the White House sometimes end up making a shit-load of money for the news networks? The mere fact that he set up those anti-aircraft batteries doesn't suddenly prove he felt the threat was real. Second, 911 could still be an inside job even if Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. The catch is, where did Osama get the help he needed to get the hijackers into America and trained as pilots? If you read up on their immigration status, you might not like knowing that they were given extra pushes from authorities above the customs-agents to get passports and so get into America. Third, the FBI said they had no hard evidence linking Osama bin laden to the 911 attacks, why then was Bush and his corporate media skywriting "Osama did it" immediately after the attacks, and ever since? Fourth, have you ever heard of the USS Liberty? Operation Northwoods? Nato's secret wars? American CIA overthrowing democratically elected leaders of other countries to be replaced with more American-friendly leaders? Should the rational person who is knowledgeable of these obvious cases of previous false flag terrorism first approach the 911 issue thinking Bush is probably criminally culpable in some way for planning the attacks? Or should they approach 911 as if the history of America's false flag terrorism should be completely denied unless and until Bush explicitly confesses his guilt in a national address? Fifth, most non-conspiracy theorists are very surprised to learn that the White House met with the Taliban months before 911 to close a gas pipeline deal that would let us build a pipe through Afghanistan. The Taliban didn't like the terms and conditions and so didn't close the deal. Suddenly, 911 happened, and the White House is positively certain that the solution to this terrorist threat is to get rid of the Taliban. Geeee.....might the displacement/dispersion of the Taliban open exactly the door to cheaper oil for America that the Taliban denied us months earlier? The rational investigator looks at who benefited from the crime the most, and starts there thinking the suspect is probably guilty unless they have a good alibi.   What is YOUR explanation for Osama bin Laden causing the financial dreams of American defense contractors to come true, by attacking in America in way that would assure Congress gives Bush what amounts to a blank check, so he can accomplish his pre-911 stated goal of upgrading the military, which might take a very long time, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new pearl harbor? Bin Laden was a college graduate in civic engineering, how likely is it that he didn't suspect an event like 911 and the death of 3000 Americans would turn around and end up strengthening his enemy (Congress gave a blank check to Bush to upgrade the military, his pre-911 stated goal in "rebuilding America's defenses&quot and put his purposes at risk even more? Bin Laden wasn't stupid....we should first suspect that he knew perfectly well how the psychological horror-effect on a patriotic congress would motivate them to give Bush what amount to a blank check to fight back against Osama's purposes. There's a whole can of worms Mark Roberts doesn't touch concerning the subject of what Osama would have anticipated to be the effect of a 911-type attack. Sixth, every rational responder here agrees that Bush has lied consistently about mostly everything that might embarrass or convict him of crimes. We thus have the perfect right to expect he'd do worse than lie concerning other matters, such as 911, which might point more forcefully to his criminal culpability. You can help me make my case against you; please tell us how open Bush was to investigating 911, and how criminally implicating you thought it was when you found out that Bush required that his 911 commission testimony not be recorded, not be under oath, be spoken behind closed doors, and that he'd only do this while Cheney was sitting right next to him the whole time. You know Bush is guilty of crimes that are directly related to 911, you just don't know it. Unless you think the conditions he set down for giving his 911-testimony is how you'd expect an innocent person to act?  I am fully aware of Mark Roberts work, and though I disagree with his ultimate position, he is a positive influence on the 911 truth movement, helping us rid ourselves of the more stupid theories. I thought Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood were important players in the field, but when they tried to get space-beam weapons out of the "spire", I could not believe my eyes and I no longer regard them as objective or important to the cause. Mark Roberts debated yesterday on Hardfire, the president of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth, Richard Gage. The subject will be the 911 truth movement’s biggest smoking gun, WTC Building 7, which never had the benefit of being hit by a plane to help account for its complete symmetrical collapse. Looking forward to seeing it. If we acknowledge the reality of counter-intelligence and how the spreading of false information would be the natural course chosen by a government that does crime and doesn't want to get caught for it, we need to factor "plausible deniability" into the evidence. If the Bush White House really did outfit the WTC with explosives to bring it down, and if they planned on making the later argument that the crash and the fire is what brought it down, they obviously wouldn't use conventional explosives in conventional fashion to do the job, making it obvious there was a cover-up. They would have experts on building demolition join heads with military counter-intelligence analysts and discuss the best way to bring the towers down that would leave as little evidence of itself behind as possible. Counterintelligence would wish to confuse the enemy, and therefore might even be willing to let the operation leave behind a bit of incriminating evidence which they know will further divide America on what exactly happened.  physics is not my forte, but the question is not "can a commercial aircraft bring down a skyscraper?", but is rather "Were WTC 1 & 2 specifically designed to withstand multiple passenger jet collisions?" The very idea that Martini, one of the people involved in the WTC design, forgot to account for aircraft fuel that would start fires after a collision, is preposterous.  Maybe he didn't know physics as well as you?

 

You appear to know next to nothing about who owns the major media news corporations, nor how they choose which stories to run.  Bush admitted explosives were used in the 911 attacks, watch the video at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=320_1185036933, then ask yourself why the government sponsered investigations of FEMA and NIST and the 910 CONmission do nothing but deny explosives were used, or just plain fail to bring them up at all.

Either way, if you know about counter-intelligence, you recognize that trying to cover up guilt would not be the most useful way to exploit a self-inflicted wound.  Psyops is a major part of warfare and coverup, so is "hiding in plain sight".  Bush did NOT have to divulge such incriminating information as the above video shows, where he admits explosives were involved in the WTC collapses.  Why then would he admit something so obviously contradicted by the official 911 investigations NIST, FEMA and the 911 CONmission?  Maybe because they aren't as interested in covering up their guilt as much as you'd think they would?  Maybe there is something else going on that they wish to accomplish more than simply covering up their guilt?  The main 911 debunker movement is absolutely bereft of any and all consideration of the use of Psyops and counter-intelligence in the 911 scam.  They act like Osama, college grad with degree in civic engineering, never would have suspected how such an attack in full public view on 911 would work to incite congress to give Bush basically a blank check to chase Osama with even more gusto.  Osama bin laden helped the Bush achieve their wet dream of upgrading the military, as they admitted prior to 911 in the "Rebuilding America's defenses" PNAC document.  And you think this is just a happy coincidence?  Bin Laden never knew how the 911 attack would end up hurting his cause?  He wasn't that stupid, there's far more to the story that you get on the 6 o'clock news.

With help from the CIA to overrule the suspicions of the hijacker's possible terrorist links, thus allowing them passports to begin pilot training in American schools, yes, I can fathom it.  Jose Melendez-Perez and Michael Springmann, customs agents, suspected and flagged several terrorists, but were inexplicibly overruled and forced to grant visas.

given that the next step was the furiously unconstitutional Patriot Act, which steals away the rights of human beings and grants the government dictator-like oppressive powers, yeah.  You?

Irrelevant, Bush admitted explosives were used in the 911 WTC attacks, case closed.

What's the simplest explanation for the failure of 3 major government investigations into 911 failing to mention the explosives in the WTC that Bush admitted to afterward?  What's next?  Operation Northwoods is a false document?

Doesn't need to be "necessarily" true.  All that matters is that the person with the theory has rational reasons to hold it.  Mark Roberts is the mortal enemy of the 911 truth movement, I'm fully aware of his work, and while he has successfully debunked various faulty 911 theories, he has done nothing to get rid of the obvious signs that the Bush White House helped orchestrate the 911 attacks. 

If you know about the USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, the CIA overthrowing democratically elected leaders of other countries and replacing them with leaders more friendly to America, and Bush's deliberate lies, and NATO's secret wars, the question is not "how can we think Bush is guilty for planning 911?" but rather "how can we think Bush is INNOCENT of planning 911?"

skepticdude

congratulations on being a skeptic

But I think you should be skeptical about the inside job hypothesis.

Do you think you have enough factual information to hold to this idea? If your answer is yes, then do you think you have more information than all the people who actually have the power to do something about it if the inside job hypothesis was true? 

Let's suppose there are people that have more information than you and that they did have the power to do something about it (if it was true), why then is nothing being done?

What are the PROVEN FACTS? I don’t want to read any hypotheses. Anybody can hypothesize.

The consideration of impeachment has nothing to do with Bush actually being a part of a conspiracy. It’s about lying concerning the reason he gave for attacking Iraq.

There was a conspiracy - a plot involving 2 or more people. There were more people besides the pilots involved,  but to suggest Bush and his associates were involved is a bit too excessive.

Why is there no effort to find out if the Saudi Arabian government was involved, after all that's where most of the pilots lived and trained.

 

First, one proven fact is that Bush, reading from a previously prepared speech paper in a press conference, connected explosives with the 911 WTC attack. 

Second, your inistence on proven facts shows you prioritize probable cause far less than our courts of law, which often detain a person in jail on probable cause alone,  BEFORE any facts are proven.  You don't need proven facts in the 911 case.  All you need is the ability to sustain a case for probable cause to believe 911 was an inside job, in the face of criticism.  When you can do that, then you are rational to believe 911 was an inside job.

Incorrect, part of the argument for impeachment includes Bush being criminally culpable for not taking the pre-911 warnings more seriously, among other things.

You missed my point, which was that the dragging slowness of progress toward impeaching Bush above the grassroots level gives probable cause to believe there is an effort within Congress to stonewall such efforts until Bush leaves office, which implies a conspiritorial Congress that has a good case for impeaching the President, and refuses to do what needs doing. 

Really?  How do you explain Osama bin Laden's caravan of cars and trucks escaping our military in Torra Borra, after being cornered, leaving at night with a trail of headlights the locals saw for miles?

How about those other 3 times Osama escaped capture after being cornered?  World's luckiest terrorist, or conspiricy?

Yeah, Arabia was in those 28 pages the White House redacted out of the Joint Senate 911 Committee, and in spite of zero probable cause to link Sadaam with 911 or hosting of those hijackers, Bush lies us into war with Iraq.  Bush tells the the whole nation many times that Osama sure did carry out the 911 attack, while the FBI admits no hard evidence exists linking him with 911 Quite obviously, the idea that Bush is involved in a conspiricy is a bit too excessive.  Bush wouldn't use lies and deception to further causes that make American defense contractors rich by the billions, would he?  He's from TEXAS, for the luv a Christ!

I have a bit more faith that some Democrats believe in impeachment, regardless of the political cost.  On the other hand, I have little faith that the people who win elections these days were authentically voted into office.  Election Fraud was a hard lesson we learned with both Bush appointments.

I disagree,  you are discounting the benefits of impeaching Bush, irrationally thinking it will make things BETTER for Republicans.  You are wrong.  Impeachment is a total disgrace, and has great possibility of being justified given that it requires a majority vote of Congress.  After impeachment, the fence-sitters today would be forced to decide whether it was justified or not.  Nobody has anything good to say about Bush, everybody except Fox news agrees Bush LIED us into an illegal war and shreds the constitution with his Patriot Act.  The chances are thus greater that most fence-sitters will be glad that Bush was impeached, which will strengthen the political platform tremendously for any reigning Democratic candidate. They could then say "see!? the democractic model works!"   While it might provide talking points for Republicans, they certainly couldn't deflect the complete negativity of such impeachment.  You are not realistically dealing with the negative impact Bush's impeachment would have on the Republican party.

I see. So it was just dumb luck that the Pearl Harbor Bush's greedy cronies said needed to take place to enable them to upgrade the military, actually took place?  If the PNAC shows us they know what's necessary to getting Congress to give Bush a blank check and thus cause America's defense contractors to hit the Lottery, how on earth can you say it was just their lucky day?  Not lucky for the victims, but VERY lucky for corporations.  I'm not buying it.  Short of a full candid confession, ALL conspiricy theories are by nature possibly explainable by non-conspiricy hypotheses.  Watch out that you don't deny conspiricy just because Bush doesn't come right out and say "I'm guilty for helping Osama orchestrate the 911 attacks".  You have to be sharper than that, and you have to know what a conspiring government would do to manufacture plausible deniability.

What did you learn from the Operation Northwoods document? 

Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, sure didn't doubt it:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=us_consulate,_jedda,_saudi_arabia_office

What else would the beginning of a NWO-police state look like, if not the gradual erosion of civil liberties and laws granting the President dictatorship powers?

First, nobody on either side of the fence in the entire history of the 911 truth movement, has ever said "explosives" and meant "the planes".  The people in the debate are always exactly DISTINGUSHING "explosives" from "the plane".

Second, Bush said the operative told him how they were told to make sure "the explosives WENT OFF".  "went off" is commonly used to describe explosives exploding, and nobody in the history of the 911 truth movement, on either side, has ever said "the explosives went off" and meant "the plane ripped through the towers and the jet fuel ignited."

Third, in spite of disagreeing with me, you say Bush used "explosives" in a "poor" way, so you acknowledge that your interpretation of his words requires that he be using his terms in a "poor" way, when actually his having read them straight off of a written script argues that he was not using words poorly.   Maybe his script said "the planes exploded after hitting the buildings"? Not likley.  The White House carefully prepares those press statements, the words were carefully chosen, your "poor usage" argument is itself poor.

I'm not debating them, I'm debating YOU, and I already know what they have to say, and no, it's not apples and oranges.  The single solitary reason you are inclined to first disagree with the conspiricy theory is because you started out knowing next to nothing about America's history of false flag terrorism.   The idea that greedy liars and decievers in powerful government positions would NOT assist in orchestrating such a money-maker is the most outrageous theory of all.

Suppose I have a history of lying, deceit, killing people, breaking the law, violating people's rights, and believing myself above the law, and that I've used faudulent documents to justify violence toward innocent people, and that my whole life is characterized by a love of money and power.

Then you find out my wife died in an "accident".  Then you find out I stand to gain $15 million from her death.  Now ask yourself why it is standard procedure among criminal investigators to begin the investigation with the person who benefitted the most from the "accident".  How long would you attempt to debunk the people who accused me of foul play, before your brain started vaporizing? 

Yes, given his gargantuan efforts to preserve human life in the Katrina disaster, and given that he's certainly willing to sacrifice American military lives and innocent Iraqi lives for his 100% illegal war, only stupid paranoid conspiricy theorists would dare think Bush would approve of the deaths of his own people to achieve political goals.  You are quite irrational.

Yes it CAN be analogized to the Iraq war, because you and I agree that the war is illegal, that Bush lied us into it, and yet he is still willing to accept American deaths in it regardless.  Sorry, the analogy is perfect.  Even if it wasn't, one of Bush's impeachable offenses was his failure to act in a timely way to save lives in the Hurricane Katrina disaster.  Bush is obviously not concerned to preserve human life when it might pose an inconvenience. 

Nope, you candidly admit Bush is innocent of murder, when in fact Kuninich and most democrats are pushing to have Bush impeached for exactly crimes of omission that any dummy knows would result in death, like his slowness regarding Katrina.  If he isn't stupid, then he knew that taking months to set up a proper rescue operation will assure the needless death of many people.  No justification whatsoever for the wasted time and resultant lost lives.

I already know about Mark Roberts and the entire debunking movement.  My arguments sidestep theirs.  I don't need to prove thermate signatures in WTC dust to implicate Bush in 911.   Bush's post 911 efforts to thwart/stonewall/drag feet regarding 911 investigation demonstrate solid rational warrant that there is something about 911 he thinks will ruin him if subjected to disclosure.  Why else would he fight the possibility of investigating 911?  Why else would he hire Kissinger, master cover-up-artist of the century, to lead the 911 CONmission? 

Is this where you suddenly discover how many convenient coincidences and dumb luck are necessary to prop up your "Bush-would-never-do-something-so-horrible" theory?

They said the WTC 1 & 2 were made with a hollow tube running all the way through them, this is a weakness that helped them collapse.  No such hollow tube was used in their construction. Shitty job, or cover-up?

yeah, and those diplomatic ties are worth money, right?

3000 Americans died on 911, yet Bush covers up not just a possible lead, but the most obviously correct lead in pursuing the investigation, the Saudi connection.  I think you are getting closer to seeing that Bush is less concerned about American human life than you suppose.  You just aren't following out his lies and deceptions and criminal actions as much as a FBI criminal profiler would.

U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, intelligence committee chairman, calls it a cover up:

"Yet this administration has taken every step to obfuscate, avoid and cover up Saudi Arabia's actions," he added. (WASHINGTON (Reuters))

Do you agree with him?  Refusing to mention the Saudi connection, when it's perfectly obvious the hijacker were Saudis, not Iraqis,  constitutes COVER UP, agreed?

When the entire Bush Administration and the Saudi who deny their connection to 911, both work toward the common goal of smothering investigative efforts to follow the Saudi connections, that's called CONSPIRICY, right?

We learn from your previous admission that Bush also engages in secrecy and deceptive behavior when there is potential money and political power to be lost.  It is n't just an ego motivating him to distance himself from "mistakes".  It's worse than that.

Sounds innocent of murder to me!  Especially given how lucrative 911 was for Bush's defense contractors.  When given the choice, a guy like Bush would always choose to saving lives over money, yessir.

YOU believe in a conspiricy theory too. Don't get too mouthy about "conspiricy theories" being unproved.  I could also preach to the choir and say your own conspiricy theory has been debunked at every level, but I don't.

By the way, the FBI doesn't have any hard evidence linking Osama with 911.  Why therefore do you suppose Bush and his corporate media were pushing the Osama connection as if it was "obvious"?  Does the Bush administration engage in deception of it's American citizens?  If so, what's the purpose of such deception?  Why blame Osama in the press if the truth is, the case for his guilt hasn't actually been made?  Could it be that Bush wishes to take the heat off of certain investigation targets and place it where he won't be implicated in anything?

Bush lies about his responsibility for the deaths of now 4000 Americans in Iraq, saying the war was necessary, while even Fox news now says it was an optional war.  Where did you ever get the silly idea that Bush would never lie to cover up his guilt for the deaths of 3000 Americans?

Do you live in Texas?

The thing with these conspiracy theories, is that they aren't really falsifiable.

 

I mean every refutation is 'part of the plot'.

"Oh the CIA made it look like they dropped the ball!"

 

See?

 

If they pulled this off they are the best fucking genuises in the history of the universe.

I don't think you understand that your own logic refutes itself.  First the democrats are unwilling to impeach Bush as part of the conspiracy, then most of the Democrats want to impeach him, sounds like you want to have it both ways. As for mischaracterizing me stating the democrats have a plan not to impeach to mean I support their plan and think it is a swell idea.....well that is just dishonest. Their plan is flimsy at best, I disagree with it, and said I favor impeachment.

Saying I would deny all conspiracy theories until Bush came out and admitted it is just ludicrous and shows no respect for what I actually have said on the subject.

You continue to mischaracterize my explanations as support for Bush, its a bad straw man. First I want to impeach him, but then I think he is innocent, huh? He is guilty of manufacturing a false rationale for a voluntary, unnecessary war. He and members of his administration deliberately mislead and often times outright lied to the American people, the UN, members of Congress....etc. That war lead to numerous American deaths. Those deaths and the money lost in the debacle are on his hands. I wish he would face those crimes, but as I have said before, the Democrats lame political strategy is more concerned with winning an election than carrying out justice.

Your other references to Northwood and false flag terrorism, and saying I am unaware of them is simply dishonest and factually incorrect. You act like I agree with the majority of covert and not so covert operations the US govt has performed in the past. I don't, but I also don't paint them to be things they are not either. Northwoods is apples to 911's oranges because it didn't involve the murder of Americans, the faux murders perhaps, but staging innocent victims through actors is much different than murdering 3000 people.

You are agreeing with me when I said the 911 commission did a shitty job, but inserting it was a cover up. To a certain extent it did cover some things up for the Bush Administration. Mainly the links to Saudi Arabia, which I implicitly mentioned. That was a travesty, most of the commission's recommendations were also dismissed and forgotten, another travesty. It doesn't equate to proof of the administration orchestrating the attacks though. I see it as more of the same political expedience and tight control of negative information of authoritarian regimes, of which this administration is a perfect example.

Osama bin Laden first denied, then accepted responsibility for the attacks in multiple audio tapes since 2004. I think he did it. He is fairly irrational, and I am not sure as to his motivations in denying then admitting something. It is a pretty safe bet that he was involved from the evidence of his own accounts on the subject. Ultimately the people that carried it out are dead. A conspiracy between 19 men carried to fruition a large scale terrorist attack.

As for people gaining monetarily from the Iraq war, that is not up for debate. There is definitely war profiteering going on. The military-industrial complex is a very real phenomenon which Ike warned us against in his farewell speech. I think the neoconservative ideals of creating stability in the middle east through aggressive foreign policy, regime change, and war fit squarely in with the rise of defense spending, private mercenaries, and war profiteering. The extent to which securing Iraq's oil resources fits into this equation looks suspect at best, and damning at the worst. I don't want to believe that two ex oil men(Bush and Cheney) with direct ties to the current profiteers of the Iraq occupation(Halliburton, KBR, Exxon etc) used this military endeavor to plunder foreign oil reserves, but as the evidence piles up, and the old rationales for the war and staying in Iraq cease to be employable, the truth seems to possibly point in that direction. The recent no bid contracts for the future of Iraq's oil reserves going to companies of countries that were involved in the war is quite suspicious to say little of the openly corrupt process. I hold out little hope that anyone in the current administration will be held to any account of their provable crimes, let alone their unprovable crimes.

So to finish, I think neither one of us will change position, but in the end some of the, shall we say, more unbelievable conspiracy claims hold at their core ideas like, everything was made to look like that as part of the coverup. Some of these things strike me as paranoid delusions. Indeed coverups do occur, government corruption happens, but in this case I just don't think the evidence supports your conclusions. Thats the bottom line. This will be my last post on the subject. Attack my ideas, but please don't mischaracterize my position of create a straw man of my response.

As for the idea I am from Texas and I find it inconceivable that Bush would lie about something to cover up his guilt, cmon! I already stated that he has lied about crimes he is guilty of. Cheap shot at Texas as well. I lived there for a year when I was six years old...uhoh...the neocons brainwashed me then! Although I am a Dallas Cowboys fan, but that is only because the Arizona Cardinals have the worst management in the history of sports and one conspiracy theory I might put some stock in is that the Bidwell's prize money over winning, and don't find the need to win to be successful all that compelling. I say goodday!

 

 

 

 

Several problems with this:

 

1) The FBI is a government organization. What, so Bush couldn't get them in on it? So Bush got the NSA, CIA, NIST, FEMA but couldn't get the FBI? If they have proof that Bush did it, wouldn't they charge him?

 

2) As for the 'pushing Osama' part, it isn't surprising since prior to 9/11 all Osama did was the USS Cole bombings 2000 and I think an embassy in Saudia Arabia. Other than that Bin Laden wasn't that well known.

 

 

What about the first WTC bombing in '93? Was that a plot too?

 

Oh and of course the CIA has the capability to assist terrorist, but that doesn't mean they do.

 

Even if CIA assisted other terrorist attacks doesn't mean they assisted this one.

Of course, but absolute truth is not obtainable, so unfortunately for you, when the WTC designers said it should have survived multiple plane impacts, that provides rational warrant for being suspicious of it's collapse after a single plane hit each.  Martini's pencil-through-mosquito-netting analogy to the 757 hitting the wtc, concluding "it really does nothing to the netting", makes him sound like a conspiricist, doesn't it?

Sure, NIST admits the steel in their replication of the post-crash conditions of the WTC towers, failed to collapse:

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was
capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." (NIST, 2005, p. 141.)

Their caveat is that test conditions were somewhat different than the actual wtc tower fires, but there are three problems with that:

a - the closest replication they could come up with, failed to collapse. This cannot simply be waved aside, it's a genuine loss of points for NIST and the official theory.  Nobody automatically discounts replication testing just because the replication conditions can never perfectly mirror the original destruction being analyzed.  Ford and Chevrolet still test crash their cars in controlled conditions, thinking the results are useful, yet knowing similar crashes in the real world will not exactly replicate the test crashes.

b - The testing conditions, being in a controlled environment, would therefore subject the steel to a more consistent source of heat, generally, than would be expected to obtain in the uncontrolled conditions of the actual WTC fires, where there are no assurances that any flame source will consistently heat a steel beam from the same location for an hour.  This means the wtc fires are even less likely to have heated the steel enough to critical failure.

c - whatever other variables there were that the testing environment couldn't replicate, are diminished by the fact that the steel held up for TWICE as long in testing fires which are more uniform and consistent in degrading the steel, than they did in the actual wtc fires.  Do you have any bright ideas about what unreplicable sources of heat in the actual wtc's caused their steel greater damage and more quickly than NIST's testing environment?  What else would you expect to read in their report, if indeed the fire-theory is the wrong one?

NIST's computer models also didn't collapse until they had tweaked the data to the point that the model was in a greater state of destruction than the WTC's were upon point of collapse initiation.  NIST declined to reveal their calculations or the software used to model the collapses, and refused, twice, to discuss their findings with people like Steven Jones, whose Ph.d in physics makes him perfectly qualified to peer-review their physical model calculations.  So because NIST refuses to allow their findings to be subjected to peer-review (meaning, NIST's scientists refuse to discuss problems with their model that other ph.d scientists have with it), the NIST model is NOT scientific. This is reinforced by the previously noted problem that they also refuse to disclose the computer software for their modeling nor would they disclose the calculations they input to finally get the model to collapse.  The failure to submit to peer-review discussion of the first sign that a scientist doesn't know the first rules of science, or else has something to hide, is it not?  Did the government spend it's money wisely on their NIST investment?

Nobody should be saying fire caused the steel to weaken so much that it eventually gave way.

 

This would show Bush's inability to plan. After all, they made all the other shit up, why couldn't they forge evidence?

 

 

 

The reason for the pushing Bin Laden is to get us riled up for the 'war on terrorism' so Bush can get his cronies more contracts.

 

However this does not mean the he did 9/11, it just means he took advantage of it.

 

Then maybe you can explain why Osama hates Americans so much, that he did something, which any dummy knows makes American defense contractors super rich,  and which caused his mortal enemy Bush to be handed a blank check from Congress to increase American military power, allowing Bush to more confidently pursue Osama's destruction, with the the United Nations behind us 100%?

Then maybe you can explain how Osama bin Laden escapes our military 4 different times after being cornered each time?

Does that college grad with a degree in civil engineering and a very heavy involvement in US/Mideast politics for the last 25 years, just LIKE hurting his own cause?

or do you suppose there's probably something more going on behind the scenes, since this shit doesn't add up?

First, I am aware of other factors inducing collapse, but I was solely focusing on the "fire did it" explanation.  You didn't reply directly to that rebuttal, you are simply side-stepping it and offering your own analysis which gets into other details which go beyond my specific NIST rebuttal.  We can discuss your own analysis after you refute my NIST attack, or else admit NIST was flawed.

Second, the coffee shop's closing, see ya tomorrow.

__________--

Their analysis wasn't flawed. Your using it as support for your position was. The issue under discussion is whether the plane alone brought down the tower. Thus two primary causal factors need to be considered. The impact and the resulting ejecta and crushing of a floor, and the fire. The steel might be able to withstand the design load, but that was not what was being exerted. Fire was the most important factor. Without the fire, there would be no viscoplasticity of the steel support, and thus no accelerating collapse due to the accretion of mass. Obviously, the other rather important factor was that a plane impacting a building at those speeds will transfer over 10GJ of kinetic energy into the building. These two factors were sufficient to take down the building, as I have shown above.

There you go again, submitting your own analysis, and refusing to directly defend NIST, even after you assert my use of their report was flawed.    Please defend the NIST account if you think it wasn't flawed, by directly addressing my rebuttal.  You seem to have lost the debate, since you admit NIST's tests did not replicate the post-crash conditions. Wow, a lot of good a pre-crash test does, to help figure out post-crash results.