Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I dont see the stream you are referring to. If you are looking at the sparks next to 79, those are probably cinders being thrownIt was a close up of the corner of the building prior to collapse.
Actually, this is the first time that you have specifically ask for proof that the 9/11 Commission was biased in its research. I have provided evidence of conflict of interest and how this may compromise an independent investigation, which the Commission was supposed to be. A non-independent investigation can lead to biased results such as omission of evidence, discussed in the following article: http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htmProve it was biased. You have yet to show where it was biased after numerous times asking. Show us how they came to erroneous conclusions. You can't.
Dick Cheney said on Meet the Press with Tim Russert,Dude are you serious. Now Bush knew because he made a comment about seeing footage of the plane going into the WTC? Now you are really delusional saying Bush had foreknowledge of the attacks. The ludicrous claim that he stayed inside a classroom is ludicrous as well. He was staying in a single location to get everything together and the school was going to be about as secure as you were going to get with all of the secret service around..Heck..the terrorists could have planned to have the attacks planned to flush him out of the school and ambush him on the road.
First of all, my contention is not to prove that the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11. My central thesis is that there is the requirement for a new fully independent, totally transparent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks that investigates with full access to and critical examination of the totality of evidence. Second, where have those facts been refuted? You continue to command me to cite sources, many of which I had previously posted on here, and yet you cite none?ZZZ paranoid schizofrenic. Wow you need medication. None of these things prove the administration have anything to do with 09/11 and those statements have been debunked.
What you have not explained is how investigating the activity of the executive branch leading up to and on 9/11 would have violated separation of powers. Sounds more like a petty excuse for not investigating the administration in charge in greater depth.That would have violated the separation of powers. It was the same reason Condolleeza did not have to testify under oath. It would have violated separation of powers..not because of sinister motives. NEVER before were internal communications of another branch subject to viewing by another branch.
I'm not asking about previous dates, which you continue to divert to. I'm asking you who told Brown and what did they know, and from where did their information come? Could such information not be useful to an investigation if it desired to determine if anyone knew anything earlier than the attacks occurrence?And he received warnings on PREVIOUS dates. How do you explain that?
I already did, several posts ago in the article that Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission published where they claimed that the CIA obstructed their investigation.Prove it. Your claims are baseless. Show citations.
To the contrary, I have answered many of your questions. I have used articles from mainstream and journal sources and even the words of the Commissioners themselves as well as the words of Cheney to back up my claims. Conversely, you have not provided one example of where you specifically have refuted my claims to any reasonable degree, and you persist in a strategy of pretending that I have not provided evidence or harnessed reason so that you can make bogus claims that I am disproven and refuted, and then, you throw in some ad homs, and think that you have made a reasonable argument. I'm sorry but you have not. For the last time, ridicule does not count for knowledge.Nope. You have not answered any questions and your assertions have been disproven
]Actually, this is the first time that you have specifically ask for proof that the 9/11 Commission was biased in its research. I have provided evidence of conflict of interest and how this may compromise an independent investigation, which the Commission was supposed to be. A non-independent investigation can lead to biased results such as omission of evidence
, discussed in the following article: http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm
]In their responsibility to report all the facts: They either refused to interview all relevant experts and witnesses, or, they censored the reports provided to them by those with direct and first-hand information."
Bias can also came into play by beginning with one's conclusion and then gathering evidence from that point onward. "When we set up our staff teams, we assigned the subject of the story of 'al Qaeda' to staff team 1," giving them the role of "telling the story of al Qaeda's most successful operation - the 9/11 attacks."\
That is, according to Cheney's account, what the Secret Service agents were supposed to do. The country is under attack. The school where the President is located is a potential target given that the President is there. The life of the President and the lives of the children are thus at risk. And the President waits? It sounded much like Cheney didn't even have a choice, the agents just came and moved him for his own safety. But not the same for Bush? And what does the Commission say about that?
First of all, my contention is not to prove that the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11. My central thesis is that there is the requirement for a new fully independent, totally transparent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks that investigates with full access to and critical examination of the totality of evidence.
What you have not explained is how investigating the activity of the executive branch leading up to and on 9/11 would have violated separation of powers. Sounds more like a petty excuse for not investigating the administration in charge in greater depth.
I'm not asking about previous dates, which you continue to divert to. I'm asking you who told Brown and what did they know, and from where did their information come? Could such information not be useful to an investigation if it desired to determine if anyone knew anything earlier than the attacks occurrence?
I already did, several posts ago in the article that Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission published where they claimed that the CIA obstructed their investigation.
Here is the article regarding the omission of evidence: http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm It worked perfectly fine for me. Now, if that evidence was omitted due to a bias, then it is fair to state the conclusions are lacking depth and are incomplete and based on biased research. Other criticism of of omission or lack of analysis was from the article by former FBI director Louis Freeh, which I had posted earlier.No, I asked you to show how it was biased or erroenous in terms of its conclusions. You have not provided any evidence. And you have yet to show that any alleged conflict of interest actually had any negative effect on the final outcome of the investigation. POTENTIAL conflict of interest does not mean someone actually was detrimental
If the link works, which it should, (works for me), the article posted has a document listed below.Sorry. Vague statements like that are not going to cut it. I can say they did interview all relevant experts and witneses and have just as much clout. Show us who should have been interviewed and was not.
Because in a fact-finding independent official investigation, you don't begin where others' left off, you begin at the beginning, and not with a conclusion.Dude once again you are a retard. The government had found by the time the 09/11 Commission came into existence that Al Qaeda was responsible. Can you give me a good reason why they would investigate anyone else if they had found Al Qaeda to be responsible? Maybe they should have investigated the Vatican? Maybe the Dali Lama? Maybe it was a sleeper cell of Nuns in South Boston. I mean really all of the evidence indicated Al Qaeda..from physical evidence found..to interviews of Khaled Sheik Muhammad and OBL's admissions.
The nation is under attack. A plane has just flown into the WTC. Is there not the possibility that a plane is bearing down on the school at that very moment? Safe indeed. And doesn't a country need its President?Dude you are so dense again. Where were they going to move the President at the time ?They MOVED Cheney to a secure bunker since the WHITE HOUSE may have been a potential target. The Secret Service also HAD A SAFE PLACE FOR CHENEY..the BUNKER DUH. There was no safer place than where the President was at at the time. He had secret service agents with weapons close to him. He was as safe there as he was going to be anywhere else and as I said before, if they were going to attack him, one option would hav been to flush him out of the school and ambush him.
The material facts are actually in dispute. Or haven't you heard of the architects, structural engineers and physicists who have stepped forward, risking their own reputation, to question the official 'pancake' theory? (I have posted a link to an article discussing them earlier in the thread).Maybe if you pay for it. But the material facts of 09/11 are not in dispute.
Al Qaeda did it. We were asleep at the wheel. We need to do better. Maybe some areas could have been more thorough but the purpose of the Comissision was to see what caused the attacks and how to prevent them in the future..not get every minute detail that would not change anyhing materially correct .
Nice diversion from my question, but it hasn't worked. Explain to me, how investigating the activity of the executive branch leading up to and on 9/11 would have violated separation of powers.You need probable cause. Show us evidence.
I'm inclined to doubt that.If probably came from the same sources than warned him before DUH
Everyone knew there was an elevated terror threat. I am sure someone may have told him
It's called reliance on third-hand evidence... means that its shaky... means that the findings are less reliable.No you didn't, and I showed that the CIA's decision was the right one. Regardless, it would not have changed the final outcome of the investigation..NOT EVEN THE COMMISSIONERS are claiming that.
is the article regarding the omission of evidence: http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm It worked perfectly fine for me. Now, if that evidence was omitted due to a bias, then it is fair to state the conclusions are lacking depth and are incomplete and based on biased research. Other criticism of of omission or lack of analysis was from the article by former FBI director Louis Freeh, which I had posted earlier.
How a non-independent investigation could furthermore comprise a proper inquiry, the Associated Press notes: "Zelikow once tried to push through wording in a draft report that suggested a greater tie between al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and Iraq, in line with White House claims but not with the commission staffs viewpoint, according to Philip Shenons The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation.
Shenon, a New York Times reporter, says Zelikow sought to intimidate staff to avoid damaging findings for President Bush, who at the time was running for re-election, and Rice. Zelikow and Rice had written a book together in 1995 and he would later work for her after the commission finished its job and she became secretary of state in 2005."
.Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the panels Democratic vice chairman, praised Zelikow as a person of integrity who was upfront in disclosing his background and White House contacts. It made sense for commission staff to contact the White House regularly to get information, Hamilton said, and the book also notes that Zelikow was such a dogged negotiator that even then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales found him irritating and subsequently refused to meet with him.
Did he try to sway the report to protect the administration? I think the answer was no, Hamilton told the AP
Because in a fact-finding independent official investigation, you don't begin where others' left off, you begin at the beginning, and not with a conclusion.
The nation is under attack. A plane has just flown into the WTC. Is there not the possibility that a plane is bearing down on the school at that very moment? Safe indeed. And doesn't a country need its President?
The material facts are actually in dispute. Or haven't you heard of the architects, structural engineers and physicists who have stepped forward, risking their own reputation, to question the official 'pancake' theory? (I have posted a link to an article discussing them earlier in the thread).
Nice diversion from my question, but it hasn't worked. Explain to me, how investigating the activity of the executive branch leading up to and on 9/11 would have violated separation of powers.
It's called reliance on third-hand evidence... means that its shaky... means that the findings are less reliable.
Are you saying Al Qaeda was not responsible and would have changed the outcome of the investigationAnd you haven't shown how the CIA's decision is 'right.' All you said was that there were national security concerns. No-where did you bother to elaborate on what would have been so hazardous. 'National security concerns' and 'incompetence' seem the excuse for a lot of things
9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question
I was discussing this with someone earlier and I've found that theres one problem with the "controlled demolition" idea (apart from the fact that its ludicrous) that conspiracy theorists cant seem to answer.
The contention is that the WTC was brought down by demolition explosives via a controlled demolition.
For research purposes, I've watched probably several dozen ACTUAL controlled demolitions of buildings and in EVERY SINGLE ONE there is one constant feature. That is a LOUD and completely audible explosion preceding the collapse.
This is not "Well there was a witness who thinks he might have heard an explosion" no this is "I was two miles away and I heard it." ALL of Lower Manhattan would have heard the required explosives needed to bring down such large structures in such a fashion.
There were probably several dozen recording devices trained on the WTC at the time of the collapse and not a single one caught any hint of an explosion the requisite size. The only audio recording I have heard that hinted at something that size has a contested validity. So why is this? Where is the explosion?
And Im a pre-certified welder who's job it is to know how steel behaves under high heat/stress situations to avoid failure. The CV weenie waving contest is never productive. I never one stated that I dont believe that anything was covered up. I do believe there was a cover-up of how badly the response was screwed up, how far they dropped the ball. But it ends there as far as Im concerned.Hi Steezie: Before answering your 9/11 question, I am a member of AE911Truth.org and the only demolition supervisor among all the members (search “Terral”). My NYPD Police Report on the Flight 93, Flight 77 and WTC-7 cases can be downloaded here. I have thousands of hours invested in my own 9/11 Investigation and know for certain that these attacks were definitely part of a ‘9/11 Inside Job.’ Before you begin making claims about “Conspiracy Theorists,” then remember George Bush’s story says 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (pic) pulled off these 9/11 attacks; which places him at the top of the Conspiracy Theorist list.
Ok, goI can assure you and everyone here that this side of the debate has seen all the questions and can provide many of the answers using credible third-party evidence.
Are you talking credible theories or just theories in general?Let’s clear the air right at the top about the absolute fact that only ‘two’ theories exist for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds (video).
**Shrug** Ok, the steel used in the construction of the WTC was A36 structural. Now, I dont have a good copy of the A36 structural specs but you can get one. A36 requires a temperature of between 2500-3000 degrees F before it will melt. HOWEVER it will begin to lose strength when heated above about 900 degrees.Typical building fires burn at 800 degrees Fahrenheit (Schwab.com/UL testing data), but sustained temperatures of 2800 degrees are required (link) to become the “Killer Fire” of any steel-framed skyscraper. Therefore, if you want to sit there and reject the Controlled Demolition explanation from hundreds of professional architects and engineers, then your job is to somehow prove that building fires did it. :0) Good Luck!
Im hearing a lot of "I heard" and "It sounded like" I havent yet seen any actual verifiable footage that contains audible explosions.Do you mean like these explosions going off everywhere ‘before’ the WTC skyscrapers collapsed into their own footprints?
<Video>
<Video>
What evidence do you have that thermite or any derrivative thereof was used?We agree that ‘some’ concussion explosions are required to bring down these WTC skyscrapers in a symmetrical demolition. The difference in ‘this case’ is that massive amounts of Thermate cutter charges were used to ‘sever’ the massive steel connections that ‘do not’ cause loud explosions:
The slant cut colums were cut during cleanup. Also, again as a demolition supervisor you should know this, thermite cannot cut at an angle.Cutter Charge link
There is no physical evidence of explosions so I have to discount the testimony as erronious. What are these people's qualifications for picking out explosive sounds as opposed to a closet full of chemical cleaners or a boiler?You have not been looking very hard if you really think there were no explosions going off all day long (911Research.org eyewitness testimony) during these 9/11 attacks. The problem is that the Bush Administration and the Department of Defense and the FBI have been running Counterintelligence / Disinformation campaigns since ‘before’ these 911 attacks even took place, so that more Inside-Job Propaganda litters the internet than ‘the’ 911Truth. The bogus 911 Commission Report is a prime example of a ‘keyword sanitized’ document that never uses the term “explosions” outside the notations ‘and’ only used the singular term “explosion” six times in the entire 585 Page document. Look at this News Video taken outside the Pentagon and try to count the number of ‘explosions’ going off in the background:
I heard and saw nothing that was DEFINATELY demolitions explosives.The Many Pentagon Explosions
My Pentagon Timeline
Tin foil hat stuff does not impress medetails all the ‘explosions’ taking place in time stamped News Videos if anyone is really interested. The point is that the Official Arlington County After-Action Report (link) also uses the term “explosion” exactly six times and never uses the term “explosions” even once. The reason you are not so up-to-date on all the massive ‘explosions’ taking place on 9/11 is because that is exactly what the ‘real’ inside-job terrorists want you to believe, as they continue to micromanage information relating to ‘all’ these 9/11 atrocities in a MASSIVE cover up operation.
Then can you explain to me how, and you should know this if in fact you are a demolitions supervisor, the charges were planted in the WTC without it EVER being noticed or disrupting the daily office work of the people there?WTC-7 was wired for demolition in the weeks leading up to 9/11, until Larry “Pull It” Silverstein (link) gave the fateful command. The “fire chief” is really his Controlled Demolition Supervisor . . .
Sorry. Does not prove that the outcome would have been any different. None of these people had any direct involvement in investigating the cell that caused 09/11. I am sure they had valuable information, but most of what they were going to say was going to be redundant..Basically the government botched the job of combating terrorism. That was established by the Commisssion. They don't have to INTERVIEW everyone under the sun if the informaiton is going to be redundant.
That has more to do with Iraq policy than 09/11 investigation. Regardless, it does not disprove or change the comission's final conclusions.
I guess you missed the part of the article where the Dem Chairman of the Committee praised Zeilkow. There goes your bias argument and your argument saying he tried to protect ther adminstration. Great article.
Possibly, but there were no bunkers and actually..the location of the President is pretty much a secret for the most part, especially these low key non political rally visits. Only the pres and the school administration knows ahead of time. .
And every single university and professional organization agree with the OV..and all peer reviewed articles in academic journals. Sorry, not going to reopen and investigation for a bunch of wack jobs with no physical evidence of any other thing happening. Are you saying planes did not cause the collapse of the WTC?
You are a retard. You cannot investigate someone without probable cause and evidence. I cannot say someone might have committed a crime and then start investigating them without evidence. I have asked you for evidence showing there was criminal activity by the White House i.e. pro bable cause. You have provided none.
Not less reliable. That is a farce. The government is one entity. Unless you are saying Al Qaeda is not responsible.
Are you saying Al Qaeda was not responsible and would have changed the outcome of the investigation
There is nothing, absolutely nothing you could every produce that would convince a conspiracy advocate that they are wrong.
Ignore them, let them talk about their conspiracy theories amongst themselves and don't give them the time of day.
I repeat...you are wasting your time, energy and sanity in making a choice to engage a conspiracy advocate in debate....all of the science, physics, mathematics and expert advice will not discount their 18 second youtube video.
How would their insight on the situation be considered redundant? I thought this was an investigation.
It does, however, show how the Commission's conclusions might have been altered due to bias resulting from a non-independent investigation. Which leaves us to ponder what else was either omitted, not investigated or distorted due to such bias. It is clear, that a non-independent investigation can result in bias, which makes the findings of the Commission less reliable. On such grounds alone, the Commission's findings can be drawn into question as to their value if they were made under biased direction. The text I cited earlier indicates biased interests in the favor of the Bush administration, particularly its Iraq policy.
It is for this reason, to ensure a full and proper investigation, with minimal bias from conflict of interest such as that which Zelikow presented, that the Family Steering Committee stated: "It is apparent that Dr. Zelikow should never have been permitted to be Executive Staff Director of the Commission. ... It is abdundantly clear that Dr. Zelikow's conflicts go beyond just the transition period. ... The Family Steering Committee is calling for 1. Dr. Zelikow's immediate resignation. ... 4. The Commission to apologize to the 9/11 families for this massive appearance of impropreity."
Now, I asked you previously to prove how the Commission was not biased and how it was independent.
Hamiliton rightly says that he "thinks" that Zelikow did not try to protect the administration. He "thinks" that a man who served on the Bush transition team and co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice, might not have been biased, and having control of the lines of inquiry, directed it in such a way so that the Bush administration would receive a lower level of scrutiny or less inquiry of depth.
Hamiliton also "thinks", according to what he said in a interview by Evan Solomon for a television program for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that "super-heated jet-fuel melted the steel super-structure." I emphasize the word 'melted' because many individuals have previously pointed out that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Popular Mechanics, in its attack, argued that no one claimed that jet-fuel fire could melt steel. And yet here we have the co-chair of the Commission believing and claiming as such. Griffin takes special note of this, and the notion that Hamiliton did not even "know specifically if it's [WTC 7] in the Report."
So in a time of national crisis, the President is perhaps safest in a (was it public?) school?
Not every single expert agrees with the official conspiracy theory. Many architects, structural engineers and physicists have risked their reputation in scrutinizing the official 'pancake' theory (I posted an article about it previously). And, I have also previously posted a link to a peer-reviewed journal article in the Open Civil Engineering Journal that questions further the 'pancake' theory and the mechanisms of collapse. Other military, intelligence and government officials and even pilots have also risked their reputation and come forth saying 'This doesn't seem right.' Not every "professional" agrees with the OV. It's reliability for accuracy is disputed.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/27/p25698
The article listed above is very brazen to say the least in getting its point out there. However, it may what you are requesting.
You have not answered my question asking you to elaborate on the apparent security concerns that results in the Commission relying on third-hand evidence from an organization that its chairs believed obstructed its inquiry. You have neither debated how reliance on third-hand evidence can reduce the reliability for accuracy in the Commission's findings.
Before answering your 9/11 question, I am a member of AE911Truth.org
Terral said:Typical building fires burn at 800 degrees Fahrenheit (Schwab.com/UL testing data), but sustained temperatures of 2800 degrees are required (link) to become the Killer Fire of any steel-framed skyscraper. Therefore, if you want to sit there and reject the Controlled Demolition explanation from hundreds of professional architects and engineers, then your job is to somehow prove that building fires did it. :0) Good Luck!
Terral said:We agree that some concussion explosions are required to bring down these WTC skyscrapers in a symmetrical demolition. The difference in this case is that massive amounts of Thermate cutter charges were used to sever the massive steel connections that do not cause loud explosions:
Terral said:
And Im a pre-certified welder who's job it is to know how steel behaves under high heat/stress situations to avoid failure. The CV weenie waving contest is never productive. I never one stated that I dont believe that anything was covered up. I do believe there was a cover-up of how badly the response was screwed up, how far they dropped the ball. But it ends there as far as Im concerned.
Ok, go. Are you talking credible theories or just theories in general?
**Shrug** Ok, the steel used in the construction of the WTC was A36 structural. Now, I dont have a good copy of the A36 structural specs but you can get one. A36 requires a temperature of between 2500-3000 degrees F before it will melt. HOWEVER it will begin to lose strength when heated above about 900 degrees.
Also you mis-stated information from your own link "A typical fire burns at around 800°F." That is a typical FIRE, not a fire in a skyscraper fueld by jet fuel.
It says further on that, "the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed" Now, considering that the type of jet fuel that was in the planes when they hit has a max burning temperature of roughly 1700 degrees F, thats more than enough to weaken the steel beams.
Also, one thing most people dont take into account. Steel will change shape as its heated.
This deforming can cause cracks in welds that hold the steel together and, if the deformation goes on for a long enough time, you will have failue at the welds (Trust me, from personal experience thats NOT hard to do)
The plane strikes the building and knocks off the flame-retardant (Which I have personally had to do, all you need is a screwdriver and you can scrape it off no problem) and exposes the steel to the high temperatures of the jet fuel fire.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing you could every produce that would convince a conspiracy advocate that they are wrong.
Ignore them, let them talk about their conspiracy theories amongst themselves and don't give them the time of day.
I repeat...you are wasting your time, energy and sanity in making a choice to engage a conspiracy advocate in debate....all of the science, physics, mathematics and expert advice will not discount their 18 second youtube video.
You mean the organization that considers electrical engineers and landscape architects as credible experts on structural engineering and controlled demolitions?
I guess you're going to ignore any structural damage sustained to the building, the top-down collapse, and assume that unless the fires can be proven to your satisfaction, that we're suppose to accept 'controlled demolitions' as the only alternative by default? I don't think so.
Ah, so it's controlled demolitions PLUS theoretical thermate demolitions. Where are the massive amounts of evidence for the massive amounts of thermate cutter charges you propose?
How were these charges mounted? When? By whom?
How was the amount of thermate necessary fed to the point of severance?
How did thermate cut sideways through a vertical column, and how was it timed perfectly to mimic a gravity-driven, top-down collapse that started at the plane's impact point?
Are there any examples of anyone EVER using thermate to sever vertical columns in a building, or using it in demolitions at all?
Sheared beams? You've no doubt been shown the footage of cleanup workers cutting these beams (Steezie posted a great video) with a torch in your time on the JREF Forums and elsewhere, so I think any attempt to present them as part of some fantasy about thermate demolitions is highly dishonest.
The rest of your post was a hodge-podge of the usual buzzwords and general paranoia that drive the Truth Movement. And you're still using 'Pull it' with a straight face?
Wow I thought I had seen some true idiocy in this thread but the last poster takes the cake. LOL what a goofball
Hi James:
Goofball? :0) What did James manage to 'quote >>' from my work to prove errant using 'his' credible "Building Fires Did It" evidence? Hmmmm? The real goofball is the guy adding two-sentence drivel to this very important debate on the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7 on 9/11. I have over 400 professional architects and engineers 'and' scholars on my side. What does James have? Nothing. :0)
The empty handed members coming out here to call people names are the ones running around with 'no' Building Fires Did It arguments for anything. I am sorry you have been reduced to calling people names, but please try again when you 'do' come up with a Building Fires Did It explanation that makes one lick of sense.
In Christ Jesus,
Terral
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?