9/11 Inside Job?

[Dazey]

So then YOU can prove that it was a torch cut? Excuse me if I don't take you for your word here.

I can't prove how it was cut but I can prove how it wasn't and it clearly wasn't cut with thermite.

[Rustycage]

So then YOU can prove that it was a torch cut? Excuse me if I don't take you for your word here.

I can't prove how it was cut but I can prove how it wasn't and it clearly wasn't cut with thermite.

Go for it but remember, there is a difference between thermite and nano-thermite, Chemical Engineer.

[Dazey]

So then YOU can prove that it was a torch cut? Excuse me if I don't take you for your word here.

I can't prove how it was cut but I can prove how it wasn't and it clearly wasn't cut with thermite.

Go for it but remember, there is a difference between thermite and nano-thermite, Chemical Engineer.

Man at ground zero with cutting torch.

The results of his efforts. Note the angle of the cut and the resultant melted steel.

Anybody see anything familiar at all?

As for saying it was done with thermite, it simply wouldn't have flowed that way with the flow pattern you can see in that picture unless there was some form of trough or packing around the beams to guide the flow. If there was then it would have had to be resilient enough not to be melted itself and if that was the case then why was nothing matching that description found?

Edited April 28, 2013 by Dazey

[Rustycage]

I can prove how it wasn't and it clearly wasn't cut with thermite.

Still waiting for that proof.

[Dazey]

I can prove how it wasn't and it clearly wasn't cut with thermite.

Still waiting for that proof.

See the post above. I can put it in smaller words if you'd like?

Edited April 28, 2013 by Dazey

[Rustycage]

That's assumption, not proof of how the beam was cut. It's not even clear when the picture of the beam in question was taken before or during cleanup.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Rustycage

[Dazey]

That's assumption, not proof of how the beam was cut. It's not even clear when the picture of the beam in question was taken before or during cleanup.

The cut would have to start at the edge and travel diagonally downwards which means you need to have some way of directing the thermite flow.

If you're working on the assumption that it was directed in that way then that must mean that the steel beneath it was of a higher melting point than that along the line of the cut otherwise it would simply have melted anything below it. If you strapped a package of thermite (nano or otherwise) to the side of the column then what makes you think it would take a perfect 45 degree diagonal route through the beam and not just melt everything below it and leave a sticky molten puddle on the floor?

Add to that that you can clearly see beams being cut with a torch on the site in EXACTLY the same way in other pictures and it kinda throws doubt on the tinfoil hat brigade's claims.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Dazey

[Rustycage]

I am not an expert on every single piece of debate regarding it. I've said that before. The beams are an if so fine, we can throw that out.

What I do know is molten metal poured out of the windows on the WTC before collapse and the explanations of it are not backed up by science. Molten steel has been found at the sites. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. The reported highest temperatures in WTC were almost 1,000 degrees under the heat needed to melt steel. Nano-thermite has been found at the scene. As declared by scientists, nano-thermite isn't there by some natural reason.

When so much work is needed to "debunk" so many inconsistencies, and there are many, at what point do you consider the source, or not consider the source as is going on here?

From page 10 of a 25 page debate. I think I've already conceded that it's POSSIBLE it was cut by a torch but I don't see evidence either way. Why did the debate just jump back 15 pages to the beams again?

Edited April 28, 2013 by Rustycage

[Deepest Shame]

Concerning 9/11, even if the conspiracy theories were true, I never got why people bothered to fight it. If the government's behind it, then you have no chance in hell of 'winning'.

That being said, I don't believe the government had anything to do with this particular incident.

[The Linguini Occurrence]

Forgot who asked about this a while back, but the perimeter columns on the opposite side of impact in WTC2 were visibly bowed outward which is proof the plane managed to go the entire width of the building. No way those perimeter columns could hold up against a plane, if they could then the plane would have stopped immediately upon impact and the bulk of it would have dropped straight down to the ground.

[SoulMonster]

I think I've already conceded that it's POSSIBLE it was cut by a torch but I don't see evidence either way.

So we have two alternative hypotheses:

1) It was cut by torch. This fits with the characteristics of the cut, including it's diagonal direction. It also fits with the fact that we know clean up crew cut similar beams in exactly the same way with torches.

2) It was cut by military nano-thermite. This does not fit with the characteristics of the cut and it implies that the government not only decided to explode the twin towers and hence killing off hundreds of civilians, but also hijacked civilian planes in an outrageous effort to hide what they were doing and blame the poor Al Qaeda.

I think it is fair to say that it is not only "possible" that hypothesis 1 is correct, is it overwhelmingly more plausible. Only morons would prefer hypothesis 2 over 1. I am sorry, but that is the way it is.

[wasted]

What are we saying here? That that beams were cut before the planes crashed into the towers?

I'm surprised the towers came down the way they did.

[T.wa.T]

If it was a planned demolition, wouldn't it take months and months of planning? Not only the plan itself but to actually place the charges themselves? How many people would be needed to put the explosives in place and to run all the wiring? A worker would have seen something or a janitor. I'm just wondering.

[wasted]

Maybe but they wouldnt know what anyone was doing but come t wasnt. They got hit by big fuel laden planes. It was mad plan though.

[SoulMonster]

What are we saying here? That that beams were cut before the planes crashed into the towers?

I think what RustyCage is saying is that someone placed military nano-thermite at all the important supporting columns inside the two towers, then detonated these at the same time as they sent two military planes into the buildings, causing the towers to collapse and fooling everybody into believing that this was some terrorist attack by radical Muslims and not rather the US government making some elaborate scheme which involves killing hundreds of civilians in a clandestine and evil effort to cover up something unknown.

What I am saying is that this is ludicrously preposterous and that the columns much more likely (understatement of the year) were cut by the clean up crew as they worked on the site in the hours and days after the collapse, as evidenced by pictures of clean up crew using torches to create the exact same cut on exactly such columns.

If it was a planned demolition, wouldn't it take months and months of planning? Not only the plan itself but to actually place the charges themselves? How many people would be needed to put the explosives in place and to run all the wiring? A worker would have seen something or a janitor. I'm just wondering.

Logics doesn't really mix well with conspiracy theories, but yes, you are correct. If the buildings fell as a result of directed charges by nano-thermite on individual beams, then whoever did it must have had access to hundreds of such beams, meaning numerous entry point in the building to get to the support structure to place the charges which would be a much more difficult feat than, say, placing one huge bomb somewhere. In either case would the logistics of such an operation, and the sheer amount of necessary explosives, render the whole project extremely difficult and with very high probability of being caught. But I guess RustyCage has some outlandish explanation for this as well, probably the agents who placed the hundreds of charges used mass hypnosis to not be seen by office workers, or added sedatives in the ventilation system causing everybody inside to fall asleep.

Edited April 29, 2013 by SoulMonster

[wasted]

So why did the buildings come down so nicely?

not that has anhthing to do with a conspiracy. I cant really see what the conspiracy is.

Youd think theyd have framed iraq in the conspiracy?

[SoulMonster]

So why did the buildings come down so nicely?

I don't know if they came down easily. It required massive impact and structural damage from large airplanes crashing into them followed by intense fires that raged for quite some time and succeeded at bending, twisting and sagging the steel structure which in turn reduced the structural integrity of the towers that made a section collapse which brought down the rest of the towers. Experts agree that such a thing could take down a tower, and that is good enough for me.

[Rustycage]

On the weekend just prior to 9/11, there was a power shutdown where there was no electrical supply from floors 50 and up in tower 2(South) for 36 hours. No cameras for 36 hours. It started on that Saturday at at noon. This is according to Scott Forbes who worked as a DBA for Fiduciary Trust in the South tower.

More:

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998.

McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998.

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.

Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment.

KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period.

Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.

But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators. Walker declined to answer the same question regarding KuwAm, referring to the public record.

Walker is also chairman and CEO of Aviation General, a Tulsa, Okla.-based aviation company with two subsidiaries. SEC filings also show al Sabah as a principal and shareholder in Aviation General, which was recently delisted by the Nasdaq. Stratesec was delisted by the American Stock Exchange in October 2002.

Speaking of the Watergate, Riggs National Bank, where Saudi Princess Al-Faisal had her ``Saudi money trail" bank account, has as one of its executives Jonathan Bush, an uncle of the president. The public has not learned whether Riggs - which services 95 percent of Washington's foreign embassies - will be turning over records relating to Saudi finance.

Meanwhile, Bush has nominated William H. Donaldson to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Donaldson, a longtime Bush family friend, was a Yale classmate of Jonathan Bush.

On the very day of the tragic space shuttle crash, the government appointed an independent investigative panel, and rightly so. Why didn't it do the same on Sept. 12, 2001?

There are reports of the building being evacuated several times the weeks prior to 9/11.

Also, why were bomb sniffing dogs removed from the buildings by Marvin Bush?

Also:

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

“Today was the first day there was not the extra security,” Coard said. “We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn’t figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that.”

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rustycage

[Rustycage]

And don't let that other person speak for me as to what I may think happened. He's a clueless one and can't seem to keep up for some reason.

I don't claim to know how and exactly when bombs went off but I have shown evidence that bombs were going off. Explain the bombs on 9/11 below.

There is evidence of bomb material in WTC dust. There is evidence of molten steel. There is evidence that both north and south were near freefall during collapse. WTC7, by a few different people, has been proven to be in a state of freefall for a lot of it's collapse.

Now, I'd like someone well educated in physics to show me whats wrong with this one experiment completely embarrassing NIST's report.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rustycage

[Rustycage]

Taking someone's word for it when there are so many flaws in their obvious WEAK investigation is just lazy. One of, if not the most, tragic events to hit this country wasn't investigated thoroughly and one of the reasons was the blocking of proper funding.

9-11 Commission Funding Woes

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html

Is the Bush White House trying to put the brakes on the congressional panel created last fall to investigate 9-11 attacks? Sources tell TIME that the White House brushed off a request quietly made last week by the 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, to boost his budget by $11 million. Kean had sought the funding as part of the $75 billion supplemental spending bill that the president just requested to pay for war with Iraq. Bush's recent move has miffed some members of the 9-11 panel.

Kean and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the panel's top Democrat, requested additional funding in a letter to the administration last week. The money was to pay for a staff of about sixty and their resources. Kean plans to field a separate task force for each of nine areas that the law establishing the commission requires it to investigate. The panel has until the end of May 2004 to complete its work, but it will spend the $3 million it was originally allotted by around August 2003 — if it doesn't get the supplement. "We hope that this request will be included in the supplemental appropriations proposal now being prepared by the administration," wrote Kean and Hamilton in a March 19 letter to a CIA official who is in charge of intelligence community budgeting. The request has been endorsed by the entire bipartisan commission at a recent meeting. In denying the request, the White House irritated many of the members of the commission. "This is very counterproductive if the White House's intention is to prevent the commission from being politicized, because it will look like they have something to hide," said a Republican member of the commission.

On Tuesday night, the White House sidestepped the issue of why the request wasn't granted in the Iraq spending bill. "We've just recently received the letter and we're reviewing it and we look forward to talking about it with Gov. Kean," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "Questions beyond that would be kind of jumping ahead of where it is right now," McClellan said when asked whether the White House had discussed the matter with Kean or plans to back the budget increase in the future. This afternoon, McClellan added: "We have received a request from the Commission for additional funding, and we are working with them to determine what additional resources they need. We want to make sure they have all the necessary resources, including ample funds, to get the job done." But Kean had presented his $11 million request along with a detailed one-page analysis showing that the commissioners already feel they have determined exactly what they need.

Moments after the White House updated its position on Wednesday, Kean told TIME in a phone interview that the White House had just told him they would likely back his request. "The wording they gave me — because I always pay attention to how people word thing — was 'Please be assured that the White House wants this commission funded adequately.'" Kean said the White House told him this afternoon that "they had hoped to be able to go over our budget last week. They just weren't able to." Kean added that they wanted to keep a "clean bill"—but now they don't mind if Congress adds the money. McClellan said this evening that the White House is "looking into whether some additional funding might be available without any further legislation."

The latest effort to curtail funding has angered victims of the attacks. Stephen Push, a leader of the 9/11 victims' families, who are closely monitoring the commission, said the White House decision was another in a long line of efforts to water down or shrink the panel's role. "I think the fact that they didn't include it—didn't warn Gov. Kean that they weren't going to include it, didn't return my phone call—suggests to me that they see this as a convenient way for allowing the commission to fail," said Push. "They've never wanted the commission and I feel the White House has always been looking for a way to kill it without having their finger on the murder weapon." Push said the White House has ignored his phone calls and emails for weeks.

Other commission members were equally disheartened. Commission member Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, said the probe is off to a disturbingly slow start and that failure to quickly provide the funding increase wouldn't help. "The White House should be strongly supporting that effort, given President Bush's compelling statement when he signed this bill into law," said Roemer, who last year served on the House-Senate joint inquiry on 9/11 that led to the creation of the commission. Roemer has gone so far as to draw comparisons with the $50 million provided to investigate the recent Columbia tragedy in which seven people died. "If we're looking at well over $11 million for that, we certainly should be looking for at least the same vicinity of money for how 3,000 people died and how to strengthen our homeland security," he said.

The slow start is particularly upsetting to some because the panel was given 18 months to complete its probe, and the clock has been ticking since November 27 but the commission has made scant progress in the four months since. Republican commissioner Slade Gorton, a former senator, told TIME that if the investigation needs more time, he'll support seeking an extension. "If I think more important work can be done of course, we'll ask for more time," Gorton said. "We're going to work with this deadline in mind." Kean said that, even though the panel has lost "considerable time," he adamantly opposes seeking an extension — unless "we simply couldn't do our job" without one. "My belief is that we will not be doing that.... It's not going to be easy and we're going to be under the gun, but I think we can do it." He added that a "two or three months' delay would put us right in the middle of the election season, and that's not when we want to report."

What's up with that?

[Rustycage]

This commission was given 15 million dollars after originally only being allotted 3 million.

The Clinton/Lewinski investigation : 30 million

Watergate: 50 million

Columbia space shuttle disaster: 175 million

Tom Kean later says:

So much validity is placed on the 9/11 official investigation but even those at the high seats complain of improper funding, time and resources. The commission chairman says he feels like it was set up to fail yet ordinary people like to "debunk" independent investigations with a joke official investigation.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rustycage

[wasted]

So they took down the towers so they could go into Iraq?

[The Linguini Occurrence]

So why did the buildings come down so nicely?

It's called a progressive collapse, this documentary explains it very well. Start at 36:30 and you need to watch only 3 minutes.

[ManetsBR]

The 9/11 Comission OFFICIAL REPORT made....

ZERO reference to WTC 7. That's right, they didn't even mention it.

ZERO reference to the melted steel. Zero. That's a in important evidence and they didn't even mention.

They considered the source of the money used on the attacks to be "low prioritie and not important." WHAT?!

[Rustycage]

And the pancake theory comes up again.

Even NIST addressed the flaws of the pancake theory.

"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 11th,"

Debunkers need to be better organized.