Glad you're having fun, TFP.
Debunked as well, as well with science to prove it.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
That's good evidence then, that there doesn't
have to be thermite in the building. I actually took the time to read the whole report, even though I was talking about Building 7, and this pdf you've provided is about building's one and two. I will gladly expand the subject then. So when I read this, I continously see the language of them saying "well for the official story to be true, we think that, ___..." and them constructing a realistic scientific argument to match their claim. I read it, and it was enough to make me believe that the towers would collapse that way, even without the jet fuel. It's not the same thing as proving that they
did.
Constructing a model that matches your claim is standard, as long as it doesn't leave anything major out, like the molten metal found in the wreckage. NIST explicitly says it didn't investigate it, or test it for thermite after the demand to consider a controlled demolition scenario.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that (1) the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else...
On the other hand - Architects for Truth has 1387 architects questioning the progression of this and other investigations into 9/11, as of now - and even after NIST's report, the least they can do be given some respect for their work, preferably not the "tinfoil hat" treatment by the public, and hopefully attention from the authorities, if not some respect for their of our nation, but the grievances of these families whose fears have not been put to rest yet, and the
comprehensive rectification of this damnable attack.
The burden of proof, of course, is on them - but 1) this isn't a formal debate, and 2) it's a first come first serve sort of thing, the metal has all been transported, the evidence on all aspects of the attacks are now only enshrined in documents, so without cooperation and the release of some of this burden, which is not done in formal settings, it's not necessarily that 9/11 skeptics have no case, it's just that it's near impossible for them for them to put together a case and present it in a medium in which you would accept.
Now, I can understand the molten metal in WTC1 and WTC2 from the jet fuel - but why was it under Building 7?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A I've also seen claims that the white smoke billowing from the bottom of the WTC was a result of the reaction of nanothermite.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html Then again, the smoke coming out of the floors has been said to be compressed air exploding forth violently - but eyewitness accounts saw them as explosions of actual debris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpaTjhYaEis&feature=watch_response What about this recent video concerning firefighters testifying about secondary explosions in the WTC2?
This is not simply a case of whether the towers could have fallen without explosives, but whether explosives were there or not.
Again, I regularly research conspiracy theories, the ones I prefer to ascribe merit to, and I maintain that I take both this forum and the alternative media with a grain of salt... I apologize if I've annoyed the crap out of you by engaging in it, but you never have to respond.
This has been debunked by the BBC itself which states what happened, and since their explanation covers information given to other news outlets on a day of mass confusion it would cover Fox News as well.
So here is BBC is trying to clear up the confusion about why all these stations reported the collapse of Building 7 early. This is a separate anomaly from the conspiracy theories that have arose from it, and deserves to be given attention, so this is not a "debunking". Even if it was, BBC can't "debunk" conspiracy theories involving
itself. Second, I'm looking at the article which preceded this one, and saw this:
BBC said:
Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did
Please forgive me if I see a contradiction in the two claims that Standley had the events "seared on her mind" and yet "unsurprisingly she doesn't remember minute-by minute what she said or did".
Now let me jump to the article you did cite. This article does nothing except use the confusion and ignorance defense, say that "
obviously we wished we had kept the videos!" even though again, I question exactly why they can simultaneously muse on the impact of that day, how they all remember it so well, and then flip flop, and say how the day was so hectic they can't rememember anything, and, "Oh, but we didn't bother to preserve the BBC World videos from that day." September 11th was A BIG DEAL even the day after it happened - regular people saved their newspapers as collectors items, regular people put their clips on YouTube, yet
BBC World News, the original owner of the clip, the world news coming from the internationally relied on Great Britain, the premire reference for historians of the future, was just...
lost?
And then the author gets into semantics, noting that their reporters made it clear they "believed" the Soloman Building came down, but in the clip I provided, it was "We are recieving confirmation..."
No debunking happened there. It was more pleading people to stop badgering them, and those in the comments did not even like it.
Especially since the article doesn't even mention Standley, who later in the night as she was being questioned about the surrounding buildings, just...said something odd, like "shutup" or "nada" and the feed stopped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsqAHhTWEH0 (Please ignore the prolonged presentation of music...I don't like it either.)
When you first mentioned this in the Mosque-N-More debate, your source was a book called Everything You Know Is Wrong. That is not critical thinking.
If other nations told us about this, then that argues against this being orchestrated by the government. Think about it: There's a big difference between, "Somebody's going to attack you on 9/11," and, "We know what you're plotting to do on 9/11."
And if this is such excellent evidence, why did that book feel the need to include that vague and inaccurate second-grader who talked about "World War 3" starting on 9/11?
Everything You Know Is Wrong is an anthology of articles by historians and sociologists. The editor, Russ Kick, gave it that title so that it would sell. Otherwise, the articles cover a variety of "nonconformist" topics such as the the dangers of TV, the misrepresentation of domestic abuse statistics (sounds like another controversial debate) the perks of being vegan and the sociology of keeping pets, and the problem of Bikini Atoll, an island that has never recieved due compensation for the nuclear testing there. I've used articles from this anthology that you say lacks critical thinking in the Homeschooling debate, relating to the history of schooling in the U.S.
Basically, it has no agenda or certain direction except to pose unpopular knowledge, which as you may have experienced is not always wrong. It only goes into 9/11 as its closing act to keep you reading, when it just lists off cited claims (in a Bibligraphy at the end) about all the countries that went on alert and warned the U.S. in the week of 9/11.
Since you, TFP, have taken up issue with this book being a credible source, I will include the bibliographical citations for you.
Congressionally-Mandated Reports Warned of Terrorism and Bin Laden in the US.
Worldnet Daily said:
Dec. 2000 [nine months beforehand], a committee appointed by Congress-the Advisory Panel to Access Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction - released its second annual report. It flatly stated: "...a terrorist attack on some level inside our borders is inevitable..."
September 10th, 2001 a Congressional Research Service issued a report... "Signs continue to point to...a rise in the scope of threat posed by the independant network of exiled Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden...the network wants to strike within the United States itself."
- Defense Department Commissioned Reports Warned Of Attacks on U.S.
London Guardian said:
Chartered by the Department of Defense...the U.S. Commission on National Security...a former CEO of Lockheed Martin, a retired general and former NATO commander, the president of the CFR, a former Secretary of Defense and Director of the CIA, a former US Ambassador to the UN, and many others. They spent several years traveling to 25 countries, interviewing over 100 experts...which was completely ignored. Their first report, released on September 15th, 1999, flat out warned: "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers." The Commission's final report, released on March 15, 2001, was...even more emphatic...one of the Senators who headed the Commission mentioned the possibility of "a Weapon of Mass Destruction in a highrise building" to a reporter from the London Guardian.
Since it was threatened beforehand, and there was precedence of the WTC being attacked, it was apparent that the WTC was a major target and it should have stood out amongst the chatter!
The problem is countries going into high alert does not suddenly mean any of those countries had inside knowledge of what was going to happen. The U.S. Government admits that there was a high amount of chatter out there, and that they did not have the resources or infrastructure in place to deal with the influx of data. They, like many other countries knew that something was up, they knew something had been up for months, but didn't know where or when. The common belief was that the attack was going to happen on July 4th. That came and went with out a attack. And then the belief was that it would happen in Europe or at one of our embassies or at a U.S. base aborad like what happened in 1998 and 2000, that did not happen obviously. Not to mention Russia had been sable rattling lately, and the U.S. and NATO was focused on that.
Of course the biggest warning was the murder of one of our allies in the Afghanistan Rebellion. He even warned us that if he died, we would know they would be coming after us.
But that doesn't suggest a conspiracy by any nature, or that the Government had reliable foreknowledge of the attack that they could acted upon. Mainly because of the infastructure Clinton sat up before to deal with terrorists, and what was thankfully dismantled via the Patriot Act. Agencies could not communicate really, information from the CIA could not go to the FBI or local law enforcement, and vice versa. So everyone had small pieces of a large puzzle, but no one could share those pieces or knew where they fit.
Now for instances of other countries actively warning us and not simply "being on high alert", here we go:
- Russia Media Warned of a Huge Destablizing Attack on the US
London Guardian said:
During the summer of 2001, the Russion media were abuzz with talks of some kind of "attack" against the US that would destablize and topple the U.S. economy. While speaking at a conference focusing on the financial collapse of the U.S., Dr. Tatyana Korygina - who works for a division of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development - gave an interview to the newspaper. (...) it is hard to understand how a this could happen in the the first and richest country in the world - without a war, without missle or bomb strikes?" She cryptically replied, "there are other kinds of weaponry, much more destructive ones."
- Israel Warned the US
Daily Telegraph of London said:
Isreali intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the U.S last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets was on the American mainland were imminent... The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI...
- German Intelligence Says the US Knew Beforehand of Attacks
Stafford Ned said:
According to the highly respected German newspaper Frankfurther Allgermaine Zeitung, members of German Intelligence confirmed that US, UK, and Israeli intelligence agencies has indeed picked up on the plot by Muslim terrorists to highjack jetliners and crash them into US landmarks. (Israel was targeted as well.) Using the global snooping system such as Echelon, these countries knew at least three months in advance about the 9/11 attacks.
Surely, multiple mediums of U.S. intelligence caught this claim on the Russian media. And if they didn't, they probably could have caught on when the Mossad experts went to Washington to talk directly with the CIA and the FBI. But then again, according to Germany, they knew three months before the Mossad warned them!
It's been said that the attack on the WTC symbolized the economy of the first world. So it would be a commonsense deduction then, that Korygina's comments could be applied to the WTC,
which had been a target before. And her suggestions that other sorts of weaponry would be used could have easily been put together by
someone possessing all the technology, resources, manpower, and authority in the world with the previous scenarios of using airplanes as weapons. Such as:
- Security at the 1996 Olympics - "From July 6 through the end of the Games on Aug 11, the FAA banned all aviation within a one-mile radius of the Olympic Village that housed all the athletes." says the
Times.
- Plane Terror at the G8 Summit - Security at the event was tight and included surface-to-air mssiles, as well as the shutting down of airspace all over the city....Italy's Defense Prime Minister (...) revealed the actual reason (...) Italian intelligence had uncovered a plan to assasinate President Bush by crashing a hijacked commercial airliner either into Air Force One or one of the buildings being used in for the summit. According to three sources - Deputy Prime Minister Fini, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Russian President Vladimir Putin's bodyguard service - the threat to kill Bush (and possibly other leaders came from none other than Osama Bin Laden.
Or the general prediction of using planes as warfare, such as
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
USA Today said:
In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center.
And indeed it was blatantly lied on the news everywhere that crashing planes into a building was completely unimaginable, even all open-source documents point to such an event happening.
Not to mention the war games on the day of September 11th involved the hijacking of planes, even if it was about "the former Soviet Union" or whether or not you argue that it helped that day or not that war games were taking place.
Wikipedia said:
Out of a range of scenarios being run on September 11, 2001, one was a "traditional" simulated hijacking.[6]
Which evidently, whether it should help or not,
it didn't, because there was no response or action taken in aerospace over two highly valuable and two highly endangered targets until the first plane, which had already veered off its course, hit.
Wikipedia: Vigilant Guardian said:
On page 17 of the 9/11 Commission Report when Boston center calls NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector), the response from NEADS was "is this real world or exercise?". According to the 9/11 Commission's staff statement No. 17,[1] for instance, page 26 of the Commission's final report documents FAA's report of a "phantom flight 11" at 9:21,[2] 35 minutes after the real flight 11 crashed into the WTC and even longer after the war games are alleged to have been aborted.
... (takes a break)
So TFP, you still want to claim using an anthology of articles, all which have citations from major newspapers, just because of it's name, is not critical thinking? These are all of the warnings I was alluding to. (Besides Wikipedia.)
Now, if anyone is arguing that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government, which I am not at the moment, they would connect Al Qaeda with the U.S. via the old annoying argument that Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, and in accordance with the official consensus that it
was not or at least, only having evidence about Bin Laden, they would report "We know what Bin Laden is going to do" which, they did, not "We know what you're plotting to do on 9/11."
My claim as it stands, in relation to this point, with the evidence I have provided, is, "The government knew 9/11 was going to happen, the location, the perpetrator, and the timeframe."
As for Project Bojinka, is it possible there were two separate instances of the evolution of the project? It states on Wikipedia that this project, which was dedicated to "destroying two Satans; the Vatican and America."
I'm not actually using this as a conclusive piece of evidence in my claim, I'm just using it to explain why I identified it as Project Bojinka...considering the unprofessional nature of terrorist attacks, would it be surprising to identify more than one attack as an instance of that plan? I don't know.
- The Phillipines Warned the US
Washington Post/Knight Rider News Service said:
...authorities in the Phillipines uncovered Project Bojinka, the radical Muslim plot to ram hijacked jets into American landmarks and to blow up eleven or twelve US airliners in two days. They turned over this information to the FBI. It is not known what, if anything, the feds did with it. A Washigton Post reporter in the Phillipines wrote: "Watching the attacks in New York and Washington unfold on tlevision earlier this month, an investigator gasped, "It's Bojinka." He said later: "We told the Americans everything about Bojinka. Why didn't they pay attention?
And how do they miss all the sources just from the open press leading up to it, and the precedence?
