If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

Like in the movie shooter the guys says "That is how ops run my son, the grassy knoll gun man were dead and buried in the desert within 3 hrs of shooting Kennedy."

"How did you know that?"

"I've still got the shovel..."

Massive operations are carried on every day and few people know about them, and those that do are incredibly compartmentalized. For example, probably 100,000 people are involved in the invasion of Iran, but do you know ANYTHING about the build up, where the carriers and assets are, the time of the launch.

Confessions of a Economic Hit Man was a great example, the NSA agent who fronted as a CFO of a large corporation made sure that everyone did their task - they DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE EVEN PART OF THE OP!

Mossad does EVERYTHING THIS WAY - THEY MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO YOUR JOB - FOR THEIR BENEFIT, and you never even knew what you were a part of.

So how many were part of 911 - thousands, how many KNEW in advance - maybe 10-20 and probably half of them are convienantly dead.

Originally posted by coughymachine
seanm

First, it is clear that anyone making a claim has the burden of proof of supporting that claim with evidence.

Which is my view. But from here on in, I disagree with a great deal of what you say.

I won't go into too much detail - just offer a few thoughts.

But you are making an assumption that I consider invalid: that there are competing "theories" of what happened on 9/11 and therefore a "debate" between "theories", a leveling of the playing field where either "theory" may or may not be valid.

I'm not arguing about the validity of competing theories; I'm arguing that all theories need to be supported by evidence equally. I simply don't accept an Orwellian 'my evidence is more equal than yours' argument.

I think I am clear in stating that this NOT a case of competing "theories".

What happened on 9/11 and who caused it was a "theory" for barely 48 hours. Since then the accumulated evidence, from thousands of different sources overwhelmingly converges on the conclusion that bin Laden successfully pulled off the attack with 19 hijackers.

Now I don't necessarily contest this (don't get me wrong, I have some doubts), but this doesn't rule out a government/government agent-backed conspiracy.

There is no evidence to support that. The evidence is contrary to that. There are "conspiracy theories" that claim a government conspiracy.

No matter how you slice it, the evidence is what is key, vetted, analyzed, dissected by thousands of people with no vested interest in anything.

No vested interest? Are you serious?

Of course I am serious.

Virtually all those who have had exclusive access to evidence have had a vested interest. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the members of the 9/11 Commission, NIST, the FAA or NORAD, the list of interested parties goes on.

That is simply an unfounded, unsupported assertion, a claim based on absolutely NO evidence whatsoever. But it also misses the point. The witnesses to the various events are people who by circumstance only witnessed the events. You cannot make any claim that they have any vested interest in lying about what they saw. To do so would be absurd.

It is no longer a "theory"; it is a body of accumulated evidence.

Which amounts to a theory still. There is a considerable body of evidence, for example, which relates to the collapse of the towers but none of it is conclusive. No one knows precisely what structural damage was done to the buildings by the aircraft impacts. No one knows how much fire-proofing was dislodged; no one knows what temperatures occurred, where and for how long. It's all theory, much of it 'adjusted' in order to yield the observed results, and all of it entered as data into a computer modelling simulation that no one outside of the 'interested' parties has any understanding of.

Your going woo on us. Please explain to us what the body of evidence in the NIST reports states, an investigation whose personnel were made up of a majority of non-governmentforensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, and architects, with each's signature attached to the report.

Please explain in detail how the NIST investigations whose methodologies, evidence, and conclusions are fully open to anybody in the world, particularly to those with the relevant expertise; that held a number of public hearings in which anyone could have attended, would not be severely be torn apart? Do you want us to believe that thousands of the world's scientists don't understand the reports and methodologies?

Meanwhile, of course, any further attempts to conduct an independent investigation have been scuppered by the recycling of the materials.

A myth, as you should know, for WTC 1 and 2.

As such, 9/11 conspiracists must refute that evidence to support their "theory" that 9/11 was committed or allowed to happen by our government.

Which is exactly what many are doing. They're challenging the so-called evidence-based findings; and asking how the conclusions are consistent with evidence that appears to contradict the official findings.

Not in reality. They are making claims, but providing no evidence. You should see that by now.

But how do they approach the problem they face? I submit they do not approach it with intellectual honesty or anything approaching adherence to the scientific methods or the rules of evidence.

Now this may, in broad terms, be true. Many of those who question the events of 9/11 are not scientists. However, should that preclude them from asking questions?

Of course not. But they have responsibility to listening to the answers, Remember, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

I mean, you don't have to be a scientist to work out that there are glaring anomalies in NIST's report. You don't have to be a scientist to work out that, when the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission says they were lied to by the Pentagon and the White House, their final report is, in part, bollocks.

There are claims of anomalies. But when you demonstrate a groundswell of the world's structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects clamoring that NIST is wrong, there will be a reason to listen to amateur "researchers" in Internet forums.

Once evidence becomes so overwhelming, the burden of proof always switches to the side challenging it.

Here, in my view, your mistaking quantity for quality. Sure, there's bags of so-called evidence that purports to back the official version of events, but it is, for the most part, unreliable.

Ah, yes, woo time. Isn't it nice that you have determined that all of the evidence is "unreliable." Have you clued in the world's scientists who somehow missed that?

And I noticed you slipped into the fallacy of claiming there is some mystical "official version." That's a dead giveaway.

Originally posted by seanm
I accept the evidence and that you refuse to admit the evidence of what happened on 9/11 does not come from the government. I also have to remind you that the burden of proof is on those who don't believe the evidence.

I accept that you will ignore that evidence which is inconvenient to you:

I request you fix your quoting of me in your other post, I did not say all of what you quoted and it's confusing and misleading. Thank you.



I accept that you are very stubborn and (aparently) refuse to click the links I have provided for you. I've also noticed you totally ignored my first post (It's here if you'd actually like to read it again), which clearly shows me that you are not willing to argue against evidence that is contradictory to your pre-fabricated government stories you blindly stand by. You're also ignoring many facts that I go through the effort to place in here and cross-cite for you, since you apparently seem too busy making incoherent arguments and posting long quotes of material that makes no sense.

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

Source

HOW can I make that up?

Is it not a "legit" source?

Perhaps you would like to read an interview with him:

Daily UMMAT: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?
USAMA BIN LADEN:
...

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.

Source




Perhaps you would also like to read this:

Link


The US Gov can say anything that they want to. They can say they had "prior knowledge" that there was going to be an attack if they want to. They can say they know it was Bin Laden. They can say that there are weapons of mass distruction. Ect. The government can also hire and pay people to say things and do their dirty work. The US government thinks that they are invincible and can do whatever they want to.


Aparently you can't even begin to understand the implications of this war and 9/11 on the US. I am no way disrespecting our troops or the people that are fighting this war, but there is something that is just not right about the story we are being fed. I myself can't even begin to fathom where we as a nation are going, but it does not look like a good place. I refuse to stand behind a governement that is slowly eating this country from the inside out. Your lack of knowledge in this area is aggrivating, to say the least.

Hahaha, are you having fun SeanM? Is it lonely on that side of the fence trying to defend the 9/11 Commission Report and the Bush Administration? Is it frustrating trying to sling your disinfo against an educated public?

To everyone else: Don't lose faith in the average Joe's rational ability. The blind denial of everything you say by disinfo agents like SeanM intends to make you feel hopeless and powerless to educate people. The reality is, however, that REAL people (not NWO whores) are rational, understanding, and will awaken to the truth. Keep collecting facts and documentation, ignore trolls, and F*** the New World Order

Sean,

From a letter dated 9/27/07.
From Catherine S. Fletcher - Chief, Management and Organization Division
NIST

"NIST did not test for explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive."

"As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

"While NIST did not find evidence that any of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 C, it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250C."

So Sean having NO evidence is evidence that there is no need to investigate. Not being able to explain the total collapse explains the collapse?? Not testing for explosives proves they did not exist??

Sean these are your guys talking not me. Maybe you should read more!

reply to post by seanm

Your going woo on us.

First off, don't start with this 'woo' crap. Applying labels like this is a dim-witted JREF tactic. Any more and our conversation is over.

Now I don't necessarily contest this (don't get me wrong, I have some doubts), but this doesn't rule out a government/government agent-backed conspiracy.

There is no evidence to support that. The evidence is contrary to that. There are "conspiracy theories" that claim a government conspiracy.

What evidence is there that the government or government agencies weren't involved at some level? I'm not asking you to regurgitate the evidence that al Qaeda was involved, just the evidence that specifically shows that government or government agencies weren't.

That is simply an unfounded, unsupported assertion, a claim based on absolutely NO evidence whatsoever. But it also misses the point. The witnesses to the various events are people who by circumstance only witnessed the events. You cannot make any claim that they have any vested interest in lying about what they saw. To do so would be absurd.

To begin with, it's pretty clear that the investigating parties had a vested interest and I find it pretty extraordinary you are prepared to persist with the view that this is not the case.

How can you claim that the FBI, the CIA, NIST, the FAA and NORAD, as well as the government-appointed 9/11 Commission do not represent vested interests. Of course they do.

And I'm not missing the point. I appreciate that these agencies are ostensibly acting upon evidence acquired from genuine eye-witness accounts. But so what? It's not what these witnesses say but how their evidence is used that matters here. Look at the 9/11 Commission report, for example. We know that the 9/11 Commission was lied to during testimonial hearings by both the Pentagon the White House. So what parts of their final report are reliable and what parts are founded upon lies? And who is the arbiter of that? More broadly, what parts of the entire 'official' version of events is reliable and what are not?

Please explain to us what the body of evidence in the NIST reports states, an investigation whose personnel were made up of a majority of non-governmentforensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, and architects, with each's signature attached to the report.

Please explain in detail how the NIST investigations whose methodologies, evidence, and conclusions are fully open to anybody in the world, particularly to those with the relevant expertise; that held a number of public hearings in which anyone could have attended, would not be severely be torn apart? Do you want us to believe that thousands of the world's scientists don't understand the reports and methodologies?

Again, it's irrelevant how many government-appointed scientists contributed to the NIST report. It's about the scope of the investigation; the access they had to relevant materials; the models used to establish their findings; and, most importantly of all, how that information was finally packaged and delivered to the public by a government agency.

You know I cannot explain the NIST findings in detail. But can you set out the following?

• detailed evidence that shows the precise nature of the structural damage (both externally and internally) caused to both WTC buildings by the aircraft impacts. I don't mean simulations, I mean photographs, videos and eye-witness accounts.
  
• evidence that shows exactly where the fire-proofing was dislodged, again using visual evidence.
  
• evidence that shows what temperatures existed within each building, where and for how long. Please also explain how these temperatures were measured and by whom.
  
• evidence that shows which structural components were affected by such temperatures and describe in detail the precise effects.
  
• please link me to a thorough peer-reviewed analysis of the models used by NIST and contributing parties.

I could go on, but you get my point. A large chunk of NIST's report is a computer-generated model, with the input data adjusted - somtimes to the upper limits of the permissible range - to reflect the known outcomes. And I speak as someone who has no view one way or the other about how the towers fell.

In sum, if I make an allegation, you would want to me to present the raw evidence in order to have the opportunity to assess it and perhaps challenge it. The reverse is true. If the government makes a claim about the events of 9/11, I want to be able to examine the raw evidence, not have the findings shoved down my throat on the basis that they come from an authoritative source and, therefore, must be true. Not least because, if my suspicion is that the government is involved in some way, how can you expect me to have faith in the government findings?

Meanwhile, of course, any further attempts to conduct an independent investigation have been scuppered by the recycling of the materials.

A myth, as you should know, for WTC 1 and 2.

Really - a myth? In percentage terms, how much of the former WTC towers is available for inspection? Who gathered that evidence and on what basis?

Not in reality. They are making claims, but providing no evidence. You should see that by now.

I've not denied that some are making unsubstantiated claims - that isn't an argument you need to have with me. However, there are legitimate questions that people have, which stem not from some preconceived theory, but from observations about the contradictory or incomplete nature of some of the evidence.

Isn't it nice that you have determined that all of the evidence is "unreliable."

I believe all of the evidence is unreliable? Damn it, you know me better then I do... or else you're making things up. Stop it.

And I noticed you slipped into the fallacy of claiming there is some mystical "official version."

I use the term 'official version' to distinguish the broadly consensual mainstream view from the multitude of alternative theories out there. Nothing more.

Simple, the same amount of people it would of took for Operation Northwoods.

Originally posted by DarkFlame

I accept that you are very stubborn and (aparently) refuse to click the links I have provided for you. I've also noticed you totally ignored my first post (It's here if you'd actually like to read it again), which clearly shows me that you are not willing to argue against evidence that is contradictory to your pre-fabricated government stories you blindly stand by.

First, there is no evidence in your link pertinent to the events of 9/11.

Second, why do you resort to the same fallacy of 9/11 deniers that there is some mystical "official story?" Sorry, buddy, there is none; there is only the evidence.

You're also ignoring many facts that I go through the effort to place in here and cross-cite for you, since you apparently seem too busy making incoherent arguments and posting long quotes of material that makes no sense.

The fact that you used a bin Laden statement from one week after 9/11 and ignore subsequent statements taking responsibility fro 9/11 is the point. Gosh.


Source

HOW can I make that up?

Is it not a "legit" source?

Perhaps you would like to read an interview with him:

Source

Link

The US Gov can say anything that they want to. They can say they had "prior knowledge" that there was going to be an attack if they want to. They can say they know it was Bin Laden. They can say that there are weapons of mass distruction. Ect. The government can also hire and pay people to say things and do their dirty work. The US government thinks that they are invincible and can do whatever they want to.

Yet most of us still rely on the evidence. You have presented none.

Aparently you can't even begin to understand the implications of this war and 9/11 on the US. I am no way disrespecting our troops or the people that are fighting this war, but there is something that is just not right about the story we are being fed. I myself can't even begin to fathom where we as a nation are going, but it does not look like a good place. I refuse to stand behind a governement that is slowly eating this country from the inside out. Your lack of knowledge in this area is aggrivating, to say the least.

I don't commit post-hoc fallacies. Whatever happened after 9/11 is not at issue. I don't go around like truthers do saying "look what Bush did after 9/11 therefore he committed 9/11."

So far, you've put nothing on the table.

What's that smell that puff of smoke?

Is it thermate? Could it be cordite??

No, no, it's it's it's...The Amazing Randi!!!

He has materialized onto ATS!!

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Sean,

From a letter dated 9/27/07.
From Catherine S. Fletcher - Chief, Management and Organization Division
NIST

Source?

Originally posted by seanm
On the contrary. They and we know what caused it. They are interested in a complete understanding of the mechanics of the collapse so to learn how to better construct skyscrapers. As is their mission.

Yes we know builidng 7 was brought down by controlled demolition since Fire Chief Nigro has contridicted the statement of Silverstein that "PULL IT" meant the firemen and not the building.

Chief Nigro has stated that he evacuated the firemen early in the day without talking to anyone, so that means that "PULL IT" meant the building.

We know by Chief Haydens statement that they were worried of the building collapsed on its own it would cause more damage and spread more fires.



[edit on 16-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I must say that I agree that something of this magnitude would take several hundred, if not thousands of people.

Funny thing is...most people who are 911 "truthers", believe that the Bush Administration isn't smart enough to wipe its collective rear end.
However, then you would like us (those who live in reality), to believe they were smart enough to pull something as complicated as 911 off?
THAT DOESN'T PASS THE SMELL TEST!
Also, don't you think by now, that some lazy civil service employee who may have happened to be "in" on the event, would have written a book by now and made millions of dollars? Oops, forgot, the govt probably took them out!
Look, I'm a Dod contractor that understands most civil service workers are exceptionally lazy and unmotivated and can't keep their mouths shut.
I think this very thread goes a long way in debunking the entire 911 truth movement. Bottomline, someone would have ran home to momma and ratted out the whole thing. EXPLAIN THAT AWAY!

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Look, I'm a Dod contractor that understands most civil service workers are exceptionally lazy and unmotivated and can't keep their mouths shut.
I think this very thread goes a long way in debunking the entire 911 truth movement. Bottomline, someone would have ran home to momma and ratted out the whole thing. EXPLAIN THAT AWAY!

Maybe you can explain why after 6 years people who you say live in reality cannot provide any real evidence and official reports to support the official story. Talk about passing the smell test.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

There is no evidence to support that. The evidence is contrary to that. There are "conspiracy theories" that claim a government conspiracy.

What evidence is there that the government or government agencies weren't involved at some level?

That's a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative.

I'm not asking you to regurgitate the evidence that al Qaeda was involved, just the evidence that specifically shows that government or government agencies weren't.

Ditto.

That is simply an unfounded, unsupported assertion, a claim based on absolutely NO evidence whatsoever. But it also misses the point. The witnesses to the various events are people who by circumstance only witnessed the events. You cannot make any claim that they have any vested interest in lying about what they saw. To do so would be absurd.

To begin with, it's pretty clear that the investigating parties had a vested interest and I find it pretty extraordinary you are prepared to persist with the view that this is not the case.

You haven't demonstrated that they had a vested interest to lie.

How can you claim that the FBI, the CIA, NIST, the FAA and NORAD, as well as the government-appointed 9/11 Commission do not represent vested interests. Of course they do.

To lie? Show me.

And I'm not missing the point. I appreciate that these agencies are ostensibly acting upon evidence acquired from genuine eye-witness accounts. But so what?

I see no rational reason to exclude evidence.

It's not what these witnesses say but how their evidence is used that matters here. Look at the 9/11 Commission report, for example. We know that the 9/11 Commission was lied to during testimonial hearings by both the Pentagon the White House. So what parts of their final report are reliable and what parts are founded upon lies? And who is the arbiter of that? More broadly, what parts of the entire 'official' version of events is reliable and what are not?

Nothing suggests that NIST, FEMA, or ASCE is lying, the pertinent investigative agencies of the attacks.

Please explain in detail how the NIST investigations whose methodologies, evidence, and conclusions are fully open to anybody in the world, particularly to those with the relevant expertise; that held a number of public hearings in which anyone could have attended, would not be severely be torn apart? Do you want us to believe that thousands of the world's scientists don't understand the reports and methodologies?

Again, it's irrelevant how many government-appointed scientists contributed to the NIST report.

I was not talking about numbers of scientists.

It's about the scope of the investigation; the access they had to relevant materials; the models used to establish their findings; and, most importantly of all, how that information was finally packaged and delivered to the public by a government agency.

You didn't address my questions. I repeat: "...whose methodologies, evidence, and conclusions are fully open to anybody in the world, particularly to those with the relevant expertise; that held a number of public hearings in which anyone could have attended, would not be severely be torn apart? Do you want us to believe that thousands of the world's scientists don't understand the reports and methodologies?"

You know I cannot explain the NIST findings in detail. But can you set out the following?

• detailed evidence that shows the precise nature of the structural damage (both externally and internally) caused to both WTC buildings by the aircraft impacts. I don't mean simulations, I mean photographs, videos and eye-witness accounts.
  
• evidence that shows exactly where the fire-proofing was dislodged, again using visual evidence.
  
• evidence that shows what temperatures existed within each building, where and for how long. Please also explain how these temperatures were measured and by whom.
  
• evidence that shows which structural components were affected by such temperatures and describe in detail the precise effects.
  
• please link me to a thorough peer-reviewed analysis of the models used by NIST and contributing parties.

Is the absence of specific evidence you want evidence that an event didn't happen? What is the nature of forensic investigations?

I could go on, but you get my point. A large chunk of NIST's report is a computer-generated model, with the input data adjusted - somtimes to the upper limits of the permissible range - to reflect the known outcomes. And I speak as someone who has no view one way or the other about how the towers fell.

What is the nature and purpose of forensic investigations? The point I seem to be getting is that it would be impossible for you to accept conclusions from available evidence in this case because of things impossible to ascertain after the fact.

In sum, if I make an allegation, you would want to me to present the raw evidence in order to have the opportunity to assess it and perhaps challenge it. The reverse is true. If the government makes a claim about the events of 9/11, I want to be able to examine the raw evidence, not have the findings shoved down my throat on the basis that they come from an authoritative source and, therefore, must be true.

1. The government is making no "claims." Various groups, NIST, ASCE, and did the most massive investigations ever done, present their evidence, methodologies, and conclusions in full to the world. Nothing was shoved down anybody's throats. Anybody in the world is entitled to refute it.

Not least because, if my suspicion is that the government is involved in some way, how can you expect me to have faith in the government findings?

It's not "government findings."

Meanwhile, of course, any further attempts to conduct an independent investigation have been scuppered by the recycling of the materials.

A myth, as you should know, for WTC 1 and 2.

Really - a myth? In percentage terms, how much of the former WTC towers is available for inspection? Who gathered that evidence and on what basis?

"Is" or "was"

reply to post by seanm


You've addressed some of my points but by no means all. I won't respond on a point by point basis since it's becoming clear that we're not really making much progress.

This is the fundamental mindset you need to get to grips with. If the government was involved, then any agency appointed to investigate the events will have a vested interest either as a result of being a government agency, or else by default, as the result of being government appointed and having their mandate defined for them.

The only ostensibly non-government body involved in this whole affair is the 9/11 Commission, which openly admits it was lied to by the government and the Pentagon.

If I run a company and am accused of unfairly dismissing an employee, the employee might be forgiven for crying foul if the HR manager appointed by me to audit the disciplinary procedure was my wife; and if the subsequent tribunal hearing was chaired by my mother.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
On the contrary. They and we know what caused it. They are interested in a complete understanding of the mechanics of the collapse so to learn how to better construct skyscrapers. As is their mission.

Yes we know builidng 7 was brought down by controlled demolition since Fire Chief Nigro has contridicted the statement of Silverstein that "PULL IT" meant the firemen and not the building.

Chief Nigro has stated that he evacuated the firemen early in the day without talking to anyone, so that means that "PULL IT" meant the building.

We know by Chief Haydens statement that they were worried of the building collapsed on its own it would cause more damage and spread more fires.

Better catch up with the facts, Ultima1:

This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

911guide.googlepages.com...

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

This is the fundamental mindset you need to get to grips with. If the government was involved, then any agency appointed to investigate the events will have a vested interest either as a result of being a government agency, or else by default, as the result of being government appointed and having their mandate defined for them.

The only ostensibly non-government body involved in this whole affair is the 9/11 Commission, which openly admits it was lied to by the government and the Pentagon.

If I run a company and am accused of unfairly dismissing an employee, the employee might be forgiven for crying foul if the HR manager appointed by me to audit the disciplinary procedure was my wife; and if the subsequent tribunal hearing was chaired by my mother.

I have no doubt that the Bush Administration would want to hide it's incompetence in ignoring warnings.

But that's not what we are talking about. You're asserting that every investigation was rigged only by making an assumption without evidence to back it up. You also are requiring that NIST satisfy an impossible requirement that, by necessity, automatically invalidates their investigation.

I see no way that you could be satisfied with any type of investigation.

reply to post by seanm


If the government was involved, then of course any investigation carried out by a government agency will be flawed in some meaningful way. Why on earth would a governement agency set out or be allowed to prove government complicity?

You cannot argue that, since these agencies interviewed x number of eyewitnesses and collected x amount of material, their findings must be definitive. All you and I get to see, for the most part, is the conclusions they've reached. How much of the raw data have you had access to? How do you know that the data you've not seen wouldn't cast serious doubt on the content of the reports published thus far. How do you even know that any raw data you might have seen was genuine?

Take the Minetta's testimony as an example. I've seen you criticise contributors here for dismissing some evidence on the basis that it doesn't fit with their preconceived theories. Well isn't the 9/11 Commission guilty of doing the same? Or did I miss their reference to the contradictions raised by Minetta's testimony?

I really can't understand why you're finding this so difficult to accept.

As for whether I would accept any investigation, the answer is yes, so long as it was carried out by an agency I believed was truly independent, and assuming they had full access and full powers of disclosure.

Half-arsed investigations such as that produced by the 9/11 Commission shouldn't satisfy anyone, not even you.

reply to post by jprophet420


The Manhatten Project did not go off with out a hitch.... It was no secret. The Russians knew all about it. The Rosenburgs, Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, the Greenglass family, to name a few of the people who sold the information to the Russians. The American public may not have known, but other goverments sure did.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

If the government was involved, then of course any investigation carried out by a government agency will be flawed in some meaningful way. Why on earth would a governement agency set out or be allowed to prove government complicity?

You cannot argue that, since these agencies interviewed x number of eyewitnesses and collected x amount of material, their findings must be definitive. All you and I get to see, for the most part, is the conclusions they've reached. How much of the raw data have you had access to? How do you know that the data you've not seen wouldn't cast serious doubt on the content of the reports published thus far. How do you even know that any raw data you might have seen was genuine?

Take the Minetta's testimony as an example. I've seen you criticise contributors here for dismissing some evidence on the basis that it doesn't fit with their preconceived theories. Well isn't the 9/11 Commission guilty of doing the same? Or did I miss their reference to the contradictions raised by Minetta's testimony?

I really can't understand why you're finding this so difficult to accept.

As for whether I would accept any investigation, the answer is yes, so long as it was carried out by an agency I believed was truly independent, and assuming they had full access and full powers of disclosure.

Half-arsed investigations such as that produced by the 9/11 Commission shouldn't satisfy anyone, not even you.

We're not talking about the 9/11 Commission whose mandate was NOT the investigations of the collapses of WTC 1, 2, 7, the Pentagon, and flight 93. We're talking about about NIST, FEMA, and ASCE.