You realize proving controlled demolition does not prove MIHOP, right?

It is a world away. It simply proves someone had a lot more access to the building.

and so does the the subsequent investigation or lack there of.

Quick removal of evidence is one thread in a large cloak, IMO. Every time I start digging at things there are more and more extremely "questionable circumstances". I really wonder if there is a point when incompetence becomes malfeasance. Is there any threshold for that? If a driver hits a pedestrian at a stop sign, you could say incompetence, but what if they throw it in reverse and run over the body again, and again? What's the tipping point, you know.

"There is no evidence, therefore, that proves the crime."

Sweet.

A crime scene never investigated by a forensic team and the evidence being sold as scrap to be destroyed before it could be investigated.

Who's running in circles buddy?

Three buildings collapse to their foundations and no one can investigate, even for safety the reasons.

Are you mental or just act like that because you think no one is looking?

You are just making stuff up.

Lack of evidence isn't the point. Destruction and suppression of evidence is.

I presume there are documents out of the NYC government.

There HAD to be investigations. That is automatic. Fire Dept, Building Inspectors etc. Plus, there is a $Billion or so in insurance money at stake Plus lots of potential liability suits. The entire community of architects and structural engineers is keenly interested in the collapse of those buildings.

The investigations COULD NOT have been stopped without creating a vast and public controversy.

The investigation may not have been adequate, but there were certainly SOME investigations.

NIST was angry at not being given proper access to the materials. They had to go through a landfill to get some parts. The entire community of architects and structural engineers were/are not keenly interested in what happened, they only want to know how to build better buildings. Their answer is apparently to put in steel cables in addition to all the other structural steel in skyscrapers.

NIST can't duplicate what happened, either. Therefore, they still don't know exactly what happened, they simply say, once the collapse had started, the total failure was inevitable. In all honestly, if they had found there were explosives used in addition to planes, and someone high in the admin told them to find otherwise "for national security reasons," what would they have done?

* from the very beginning said, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11." What do you suppose he was talking about there? Hell, his admin didn't even want there to be an investigation of the events leading up to 9/11 before 9/11 happened. They pretty much told everybody to STFU.

FEMA and NIST are not criminal investigators. Hence, there has been No Criminal Investigation at all. They knew who the culprits were basically the next day, and off to war we went, no more questions asked. No one has even followed the damn money trail. Be serious, please. I understand you spend your time debunking, but you can't substitute apples for oranges here.

Talk about kool-aid drinking, wow...

These are excerpts from the Jones paper, and can be also found in the individual respective reports.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse <“official theory”> remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5)

...

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.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140)

....

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 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)


That doesn't sound to certain to me, are you going to try people here it does?

The original claim was that ABSENCE of an investigation was evidence of a coverup; if a coverup then there must have been a crime.

Classic Conspiracy Hobby logical fallacy. A circular argument.

BUT since there WAS an investigation, even the initial premise is wrong.

The bigger argument--that fires COULD NOT cause the buildings to fall-- is VERY hard to make: There are a multitude of possible failure modes in a large building. NIST may not have known exactly what happened, but they are certainly not saying that the buildings COULD NOT have fallen due to structural damage and fire.

Indeed, that is what happened.

ON EDIT---Oh! These quotes are actually from that Cold Fusion Mormon professor (who finds evidence Christ was in the New World in Mayan art) and not directly from NIST/FEMA. I will wager a virtual Cold Beer that in the context of the whole report these findings have a different meaning.

While I think discussion of discrepancies in the OCT is valuable, I don't think we will ever have definitive answers without the help of a well-funded, independent, non-partisan investigation.

I never really thought it looked like a controlled demolition anyway...(just kidding)

I guess you are right, but that would bring a whole new cast of characters into light because they wouldn't be CIA, military operatives or contractors or whomever. Are you thinking LIHOP and BushCo doesn't want it out because it would be too hard to explain how they managed to get away with it? Or OCT and someone, like a Saudi or other firm had unusual access to the building?
I don't know if this relates, but there were several witness accounts of people being arrested at the WTC that day. I think at least one was of Middle Eastern appearance. I really would like to know what was going on with that, I have never heard any explanation.

They would just have to plant a bunch of bombs, and then boom. Not easy, but it could be done. Usama is, after all, an engineer, so they say. I imagine he could get the details of the structure and know how to bring it down that way. It does look as if there were secondary bombs in the building, no doubt. Don't have that perfectly square for my own mind yet, but I've never heard of an aerosol can blowing up and knocking a grown man backward off his feet.

There are many things, however, that they could not have done. I need to dig and get my facts absolutely straight, but the behavior of some admin folks was/is really strange. The promotions also are really fishy, one or two would be corruption, but the way they reward failure is ridiculous.

Additionally, if they're actually fighting terrorism, why didn't they secure our ports, chemical plants, nuke facilities, water supply, food supply... before trotting off to Iraq to murder people, set up their regional strategic advantage, and grab oil?

"Additionally, if they're actually fighting terrorism, why didn't they secure our ports, chemical plants, nuke facilities, water supply, food supply... before trotting off to Iraq to murder people, set up their regional strategic advantage, and grab oil?"

And, while they weren't securing our ports, chemical plants, nuke facilities, etc., they were also busy using 9/11 as an excuse to pre-emptively strike a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

i doubt the same could be said for WTC 7 with all those federal agencies as tenants. or could it, hmmmm.

Explosives in the building is -supposed- to prove a vast Secret Government Conspiracy. Actually, it would prove nothing, even if there WERE explosives.

The administration -is- very strange and acts very strange. That proves they are strange and evil and etc. Doesn't prove that they did things that require supernatural powers.

LOTS of things could produce explosion in a burning and collapsing skyscraper. You should read the 911Myths site or the locally derided Popular Mechanics article.

were not burning. The PM article is derided, because it rests on false premises (like the PBS special), and appears to be derisive of people asking questions itself. It's just not a good way to make friends, let alone believers.

Nothing about MIHOP or LIHOP require supernatural powers, IMO. You really think they need to be super human to do such things? Wow, those Arabs are really special... no wonder we still use their mathematical/numbering system... so advanced.

what was the point? And what did they have to do with the collapse?
And, its OK to be derisive of Fools.

Much of this stuff is so ridiculous that the only possible argument is ridicule.

analysis of its shortcomings.

its OK to be derisive of Fools.

There's danger of circular reasoning: I deride him because he's a fool,
he's a fool because his argument is ridiculous, his argument is
ridiculous because he's a fool.

There's also a danger of confusing your satires with the facts.

People produce evidence to 'prove' that the Apollo Moon landings never happened or that evolution is not a fact.

I don't have the time or resources to find the fallacy or faked data in each such piece of evidence. But I don't need to. Vast evidence supports both 'theories' and it is far more probable that these individual claims are false than that the whole 'theory' is false.

Likewise, if a claim is physically impossible or internally incoherent, I really don't need to waste my time figuring out whether (say) the photo is faked.

The appropriate response to nonsense is often a big Horse Laugh.

I leave the application to 9/11 conspiracy theories to you.

That's what I'm saying. A low quality argument is easy to refute.

Of course one can invent specious reasons that something is physically
impossible. "The doors are too small for the unicorns."

the building. (Unless you want to say the explosives were installed but not used.)

Where do you get this requirement for supernatural powers?

Michael Maltbie the FBI supervisory special agent accused of blocking field agents from obtaining a search warrant to search Moussaoui - PROMOTED. ...while....
Colleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, John O'Neill, Anthony Shaffer, (had his sec clearance removed for parking tickets & phone bills under $100), Robert Wright, all demoted, threatened, or gagged for trying to get information about terrorists out and measures taken to protect us against them.
Robert Wright was told "Let Sleeping dogs lie" "intentionally & repeatedly thwarted and obstructed" -his investigation to ID terrorists...
Asscroft said "I don't want to know about it" in response to warnings
Cheney started a Terrorism Task Force after 911 - never held one meeting.
Richard Armitrage rejected recommendations to turn down visas from Saudi Arabian's received under "Visa Express (no interview or background check needed)
FAA official destroyed tape by ATCs then shredded and dropped it into different garbage cans in the building - He'll probably be our next president.
Bushler stayed on vacation, no meetings were held in response to 23 warnings from 11 countries -planes and urban targets.
Incompetence? no, they were VERY competent..

WTC blueprints in 1990. The guy's name was Ahmed Amin Refai.
There are pictures showing him close to the Blind Sheikh.

http://www.peterlance.com/terror_link_nydn_090403.htm

which ran security on the complex. Kind of blows that world away thing out of the water...

in a security firm for WTC wouldn't really prove much in a court of law. "Security" is really not that much of a problem if you're creative about how you get around it. They have plausible deniability.

They have worked in an effort to hinder any investigation of the destruction of these towers, and their prints are all over it...

You know the old saying it's not the crime it's the cover-up...

Marvin Bush did not "run security" at the WTC. He was part-owner of a company that had minor security contracts at the WTC, no more than 1.5 million in a year, and no contracts in 2001!

In itself, this proves NOTHING. It is nowhere near the smoking gun some people think it is.

As Securacom had access to sensitive information, this lead is worthy of questioning by a properly empowered independent investigation.

I suppose you could wonder who, for form's sake, but I really don't think there's any question of who was behind it or why.

:shrug:

AQ or US intel community black ops?

Doesn't "prove" anything, but makes one scenario far more plausible than the other.

Bunch of g-men in trench coats carrying boxes of explosives would be kind of conspicuous.

Not to mention the problems of requisitioning the dynamite on gov't accounts. Buying a box of paperclips is hard enough.

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html

Vol. 9, No. 2021 - The American Reporter - January 20, 2003
SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11 SECURITY

by Margie Burns

Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, Jan 19, 2003 -- A company that provided security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., and to United Airlines between 1995 and 2001, was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to a brother of President Bush and the Bush family, according to records obtained by the American Reporter.

Two planes hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001 were United Airlines planes, and another took off from Dulles International Airport; two, of course, slammed into the World Trade Center. But the Bush Administration has never disclosed the ties of a presidential brother and the Bush family with the firm that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.

Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named facilities, and many of the public records revealing the relationships are not public.

Nonetheless, public records reveal that the firm, formerly named Securacom, listed Bush on its board of directors and as a significant shareholder. The firm, now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C., and emphasizes federal clients. Bush is no longer on the board.

Marvin Bush has not responded to repeated telephoned and emailed requests for comment on this story.

The American Stock Exchange delisted Stratesec's stock in October 2002. Securacom also had a contract to provide security at Los Alamos National Laboratories, notorious for its security breaches and physical and intellectual property thefts.

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." Yet instead of being investigated, the company and companies involved with it have benefited from legislation pushed by the Bush White House and rubber-stamped by Congressional Republicans. Stratesec, its backer KuwAm, and their corporate officers stand to benefit from limitations on liability and national-security protections from investigation provided in bills since 9/11.
FULL REPORT:
http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html

G-men with gov't accounts.

Many of the tenants in the WTC used their offices for warehouses. According to one
poster in this forum, the freight elevator could lift loaded vans. Explosives could
have been smuggled in in boxes of product.

They don't have to tell anybody on the outside what they're buying. That's ridiculous. How do you think covert work gets done? They certainly don't go through the regular acquisition process.

G-men in trench coats - :spray:

I'm not sure whether you're really naive, or just a poor player at devil's advocate.